Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make. The order of the House of 13 November last provided for a ballot to be held today for private Members' motions to be moved on 5 June. Clearly, in the changed circumstances there is no point in having a ballot for that day I have therefore given directions that it should not be held. I understand that this is acceptable to the House.

1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—


1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before Committee when claimed
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against


—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Return ordered,

Of the number of Instruments considered in Session 1986–87 by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and of those within the Committees' orders of reference for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute, and the numbers drawn to the special attention of the House or of both Houses distinguishing the ground in the Committees' orders of reference upon which such attention was invited; and the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., and by the House respectively, in Session 1986–87, showing the number where the Question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 101(5). — [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,

of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House, and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1986–87;

Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1986–87 were reported on

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Ordered,
That in the case of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, Standing Order 208 (Notice of consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords amendments agreed to.

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 35)

Return ordered,

respecting applications of Standing Order No. 35 (Closure of debate) during Session 1986–87, (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House under the following heads:

by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated wholly by the House or partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;

Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1986–87 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended;

And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,

of the number of Public Bills distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1986–87, showing:

(1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and

(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent,

indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills reached by the time of Dissolution. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,

for Session 1986–87, of statistics relating to the membership, work costs and staff of Select Committees with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Return ordered,

of the days on which the House sat in Session 1986–87, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business. — [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS

Return ordered,

of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1986–87; the number withdrawn; the number annulled; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved and be amended respectively; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders;

Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1986–87, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
for Session 1986–87, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c) or Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by which it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings. — [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Labour Statistics

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland for the last available date and in May 1979, compiled on a similar basis.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): On a comparable basis, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland was 150,400 in May 1979 and 344,600 in March 1987.

Mr. McKelvey: Is it not astonishing that the Secretary of State for Scotland can stand at that Dispatch Box without hanging his head in shame when announcing these horrendous figures? I suspect that he will not need a crystal ball to translate those figures into terms of human misery, despondency and despair that the Government have spread throughout Scotland. I say to him, on behalf of the unemployed of Scotland, that he has one opportunity for atonement, and that is to resign here and now.

Mr. Rifkind: Before I do, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman on his return to the House? We are all pleased to see him after his recent illness.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling on this subject, but he should be aware of the substantial progress that the Scottish economy has been making, particularly over the last few months. I remind the House that the Scottish Business Survey, which was published by the Fraser of Allander Institute a few weeks ago, said:
The short-term prospects for the Scottish economy have improved markedly during the opening months of 1987 with business optimism continuing to rise and the prospects of some growth in employment. Firms in all sectors expect both sales and new orders to grow over the next few months with manufacturing and construction being particularly buoyant.

Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it objectionable that the Opposition should speak in the way that they do, when their policies on nuclear power and weapons would, at a stroke, destroy scores of thousands of jobs in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The South of Scotland Electricity Board has estimated that electricity tariffs would have to increase by 20 to 30 per cent. as a consequence of the abandonment of nuclear power. Apart from anything else, that would have meant that the Finnish pulp mill, which is coming to Irvine, would not have contemplated a Scottish location, and many of the tens of thousands of jobs around Scotland—Caithness, in particular—would have been severely affected, if not entirely lost.

Mr. Wilson: Is not the real indictment of the Secretary of State that after eight years he can rejoice in the unemployment figures that we have heard? He is so complacent about the situation that he relies solely on grasping the straws of short-term prospects. When will he do something about the Scottish economy, because under his care and that of his predecessor it has rotted away?

Mr. Rifkind: Far from being complacent, I am delighted that, over the past eight weeks, unemployment

in Scotland has fallen by more than 16,000. I believe that the prospects for the Scottish economy are better than they have been for years. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the increased competitiveness of the Scottish economy, the increased productivity of those who work within that economy, and the far healthier state of the whole spectrum of Scottish business have enabled such improvements to take place.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall reading an article, in the Glasgow Herald in 1978, written by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) predicting that unemployment would be well over 3 million in the next five years and pointing out that that would be due to the large numbers of new young people coming on to the labour market? Surely the hon. Gentleman was right. Is it not wrong for the Opposition to indulge in such double-standard electioneering and to seek to repudiate the figures that members of the Opposition predicted when they were in government?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) made that prediction and emphasised that that increase would take place irrespective of which party was in government. However, thanks to improvements in productivity, competitiveness and the fall in inflation that has taken place since the Government came to power, not only is the standard of living of the Scottish people higher than ever before, but we have the prospect of a continuing fall in unemployment in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lambie: Does the Secretary of State realise that unemployment in the Irvine travel-to-work area is now nearly 12,000, which is the equivalent of 25 per cent.? Is the Secretary of State aware that during the past six weeks I have twice raised the question of the threatened closure of McKinnon of Scotland knitwear factory in Irvine? The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends promised me their full support, but I have now been informed that the Industry Department in Scotland has withdrawn its offer of financial help to one prospective buyer of that factory. Why?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. Discussions are continuing, and we have made it clear that the prospect of financial help for anyone interested in taking over that particular plant remains available for discussion. The Scottish Office has withdrawn no offers of help from anyone in connection with this particular plant. The hon. Gentleman, who represents Irvine, knows perfectly well that the prospects for Irvine took a tremendous turn for the better with the decision by the Finnish pulp mill to locate in Irvine. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Labour party's policy on nuclear power would doom any prospect of that pulp mill coming to his constituency.

Mr. Dewar: In view of the figures, is not this professional optimism from the Secretary of State beginning to sound a little like cant? Is it not shameful that, after eight years of Conservative success, of which we hear so much, there are 363,000 Scots drawing unemployment benefit? According to the Library statisticians and working on a comparable basis, that is about 130 per cent. more than the figure that the Prime Minister inherited in 1979. Does the Secretary of State


accept that unemployment must be a key issue in the coming weeks? Whatever the hopes of Scottish Ministers, many people in Scotland cannot forget the scarring misery of the dole queues and, I am afraid, the contribution that has been made to that crisis by the Government's thrawn indifference to what is happening in our communities.

Mr. Rifkind: First, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that unemployment doubled under the previous Labour Government, and I do not recall his drawing comparable conclusions at that time. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows well that the competitiveness and productivity of Scottish industry have never been higher. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have not only given substantial support to the Scottish Development Agency and Locate in Scotland, but have transformed those bodies into internationally recognised agencies, which are the best of their kind anywhere in Western Europe. In addition, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party's proposals for an assembly with tax-raising powers have already been condemned by Scottish industry as likely to do enormous damage to industry and to the prospects for employment in Scotland.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are a number of questions on unemployment on the Order Paper. I ask for brief questions, which may lead to brief answers.

Guinness plc

Mr. Craigen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what follow-up discussions he has had with Guinness plc since the statement by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to the Scottish Grand Committee on 17 July 1986.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend has met representatives of Guinness on three occasions since 17 July 1986. I have also been involved in meetings with the company. These discussions, which are continuing, have ranged over a variety of matters related to Guinness's activities in Scotland.

Mr. Craigen: Why did the Secretary of State for Scotland not answer the question? Is it because he realises that it was unfair of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to upstage the leader of the Liberal party last July during the Scottish Grand Committee debate on industry when he gave an assurance that the Secretary of State was on his charger as far as the Guinness company was concerned? We know that the Secretary of State is accident-prone in regard to horses. He falls off them. What more is the Secretary of State doing to get the company to locate in Scotland and bring the promised jobs?

Mr. Lang: We shall miss the hon. Gentleman's carefully modulated tones in the next Parliament. I wish him the best of luck in his future career
As my answer demonstrated, my right hon. and learned Friend and I keep in close touch with Guinness. We are watching the continuing developments involving the increasing location of its activities in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend discusses matters with Guinness, will he discuss broken pledges and pledges that may not as yet have been fulfilled? Will he

consider any pledge that was given to the leader of the Liberal party who robustly came out in defence of the Guinness attempted takeover of Bell's, Scotland's best performing whisky company at the time, on the basis that Bell's was in need of Guinness's assistance? We now see what that assistance has produced. We should like to know exactly what the promises were.

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the leader of the Liberal party can speak for himself, once he has cleared the matter with the leader of the Social Democratic party.
My hon. Friend will be glad to know of Guinness's expanded activities in Perth. Britain's leading spirits organisation, covering the marketing and sales of all United Kingdom brands, will be located there and will create 50 new jobs.

Sir Alex Fletcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that Guinness is suffering from a marked shortage of genius and that it would not require much at all to fulfil the commitments that were made many times in Scotland last year to move its headquarters and jobs to Scotland? Will he tell the House what the members of the Guinness board are saying about those commitments?

Mr. Lang: I hope that the amount of genius on the Guinness board has increased now that the chairman and chief executive and also two leading non-executive directors are Scots. As my hon. Friend knows, the chairman's office is in Edinburgh. The chief executive of the group and the chief executive of the new united Distillers group also have offices in Edinburgh.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give us some assurance in relation not only to the headquarters of Bell's and other aspects of the Guinness subsidiary being located in Scotland, but the manufacturing base? Some of us have misgivings. We were given assurances by the previous management of Guinness—assurances that can bear no weight. Some hon. Members who have bottling plants in their constituencies are extremely worried about such assurances. What approaches have been made by his right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that not only the headquarters but the productive capacity and throughput of Bell's subsidiary are located in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: We are certainly in touch with Guinness on a continuing basis. The closure of bottling plants is regrettable, but some rationalisation of that kind was almost inevitable, regardless of ownership. All distilling, blending and bottling in the group is now centralised in Scotland.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Setting aside the whiff of City scandals, will the Minister explain to the House, as the Secretary of State has declined to do so, what happened to the pledges made on behalf of the Secretary of State on 17 July by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary? What happened to the pledges about jobs? What happened to the firm, documentary commitments? What happened to the plan for location in Scotland? Above all, will the Minister tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the people of Scotland are now somewhat discouraged with his ill-founded optimism which has been shown most recently and notably in regard to Caterpillar?

Mr. Lang: I have already told the House of a number of developments to the advantage of Scotland in connection with Guinness. I can also point to the Glenochil yeast plant being retained in preference to the


Bristol plant, thus saving 300 jobs; to the modernisation of the Johnny Walker bottling plant at Kilmarnock, where there are 800 jobs; and to the expansion of Gleneagles as an international leisure centre.

Mr. Allan Stewart: With regard to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said about me, will my hon. Friend confirm that I was simply putting on record the position on 17 July in the interests of the people of Scotland and of all Scottish Members of Parliament? Does my hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of other matters, the whole of Scotland is full of admiration for the way in which Sir Norman Macfarlane has acted as chairman of Guinness?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with his latter remarks.

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) because he was mentioned, so I shall call one more Opposition Member.

Mr. Martin: Because of the amalgamation with DCL, Guinness now owns almost the whole of the Port Dundas area in my constituency. The White Horse bottling plant has been lying empty for well over a year now, and steps should be taken by the Government to find out what will happen to that plant.

Mr. Lang: I dare say the hon. Gentleman will already have taken up that matter with the owners. I am sure that he shares my satisfaction at the continuing success of the whisky industry. Exports in the last year for which we have figures exceeded £1 billion in value.

Village Halls

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding capital grants for village halls in the Stirling constituency; and if he is satisfied with the operation of the relevant scheme in the central region.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My hon. Friend has made representations on behalf of the communities involved in the grant scheme for village halls since Central regional council declined to support this programme. However, Stirling district council is prepared to sponsor projects, and I will be providing half the eligible costs to enable four to proceed.

Mr. Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that Central region should have sought to prevent halls in my constituency benefiting from grants from the Scottish Office to the extent of 50 per cent.? What is the position now in respect of the halls in Gartmore, Killin, Lochearnhead and Brig o'Turk?

Mr. MacKay: I share my hon. Friend's concern that Central regional council did not agree to take part in what is considered in most parts of Scotland—including my own constituency—to be a worthwhile scheme. I can confirm that the four halls that he has mentioned will be going ahead, and that I shall be contributing £95,000 of central Government money to the project.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the people who run the village halls in Stirling, to which reference has been made, would be in a better position to organise their enterprises if the Scottish Council for

Voluntary Organisations was given some support by his Department for getting a full-time officer, so that the schemes for co-ordinating SED and capital grants and other running costs could be made available publicly?

Mr. MacKay: I would rather use the money to help the communities to build halls than create yet another centralised Scottish bureaucracy.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is it not sheer humbug for a Tory Member of Parliament who has spent his undistinguished career here attacking all forms of public subsidies to seek to distort the record of Labour local authorities in relation to the provision of subsidies to village halls in his constituency? Is the Minister aware that no fewer than 40 village halls throughout rural Stirlingshire have had the benefit of assistance under this and other schemes, thanks to initiatives taken by Stirling district council — a Labour-controlled authority — under the excellent leadership of Councillor Michael Connarty?

Mr. MacKay: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) requires a lecture from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who has his own distinguished line in hyprocrisy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a parliamentary phrase. Please withdraw it.

Mr. MacKay: I quite happily withdraw the lane' word. The hon. Gentleman has a most distinguished line in his own unique blend of intellect which he brings to the House. Those of us who have to listen to him in agricultural debates, in which he is a noted expert. being a major landowner in Scotland, are well aware of his brilliance.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of unemployed people in Scotland in (a) May 1979 and (b) May 1987 or the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: There were 154,419 unemployed claimants in Scotland in May 1979 and 363,781 in March 1987. While unemployment still remains too high, it is encouraging to see the substantial reductions in the Scottish total in the last two months.

Mr. Canavan: If the Minister has the chance of addressing the Prime Minister's Nuremburg-type rally at Perth this coming weekend, will he take off his Goebbels mask and tell the people of Scotland the whole truth which is that, according to the independent unemployment unit, the real total of unemployed people in Scotland is well over the 400,000 mark? There are over 400,000 reasons why the people of Scotland will reject the Tory party. The Tory party in Scotland will be reduced to a discredited rump at the forthcoming general election. Perhaps even the people of Galloway and Edinburgh, Pentlands and Argyie and Edinburgh, South will return Labour Members of Parliament instead of the Thatcherite lackeys who misrepresent them at present.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member has a wonderful sense of humour. For the moment, I shall content myself by welcomimg the fact that unemployment in his constituency


has fallen by about 1 per cent. over the last two months, and that about 77 per cent. of the members of his local job club go out of the job club into employment.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the whole truth seen when one also looks at the figures of employment? Will my hon. Friend confirm that employment has been rising steadily in Scotland, together with manufacturing productivity, exports and industrial profitability?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In particular, self-employment has been rising sharply as people realise the attraction of setting up their own businesses in the improved economic climate that we have established in Scotland.

Mr. MacKenzie: Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary accept that many hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, and indeed many people throughout Scotland, will regard the figures that he has given as absolutely scandalous? Secondly, does he agree that he must look very much beyond even the figures that he has so starkly mentioned today? There are men over 40 who do not see any prospect of ever getting a job under this Administration, and many young people now in their early 20s have never had a decent job since they left school. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary and his colleagues, who are responsible for the administration of industry in Scotland, should think black burning shame of themselves that these young people should have no hope at all under this Government.

Mr. Lang: I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman, having had no familiarity in his party during its period in government with falling unemployment, may not recognise the good news that is now coming through in the Scottish economy. Unemployment is falling sharply among the long-term unemployed and among young unemployed. The economy is responding to the wide range of measures for training and increasing enterprise that we have generated in the last few years.

Sir Alex Fletcher: Will my hon. Friend tell the House the extent to which employment and self-employment have increased in Scotland since 1983?

Mr. Lang: Since 1983 self-employment has increased by 27 to 30 per cent. That is a very encouraging figure. In terms of employment generally, because of the expanded work force, undoubtedly there are many more people in employment than there have been for some considerable time.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979 Scotland has lost no fewer than 180,000 jobs in manufacturing industry and that nothing in the Government's policy is replacing those? Will he further acknowledge that, instead of selectively taking the last two months, the realistic trend of the last six months shows that the rate of decrease in unemployment in Scotland is such that it will take 160 years to get the unemployment level back to the level that the Tories inherited?

Mr. Lang: That is one of the most idiotic questions that I have heard in this Chamber for some considerable time. The hon. Gentleman takes no account whatever of the expansion of the service industry, and of banking and the financial sector, all of which generate good, effective and profitable jobs. A more significant point about

manufacturing industry is that output is almost at the level that it was at when there were 190,000 more jobs in manufacturing. That improved productivity is the strongest safeguard for future growth and employment in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister agree that on no fewer than 19 occasions the Government have fiddled the figures, and that on each occasion that has, accidentally, Glory be, brought the figures down? Does the hon. Gentleman further agree with the Secretary of State for Employment, who said, "I lose no sleep over unemployment"? As Conservative Members are fond of quotations, does the Minister agree with the most recent quotation by the Secretary of State when he went to Renfrewshire, an area devastated by unemployment, where eight out of 10 young people in my constituency either have no job or are on short-term training, and said, "Every day is like Christmas."? If every day is like Christmas, when will the unemployed get some bloody presents from the Government?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There have been only six discernible changes—[Interruption.] —in the method of calculation of unemployment — [Interruption.] Two of the changes—the change to fortnightly registration and the inclusion of the severely disabled — have had the effect of increasing, not reducing, the unemployment count. If the hon. Gentleman wants to look for dramatic and substantial changes in the way in which the unemployment figures are calculated, he should look back at the previous Labour Administration, who removed adult students, which had an effect that could have been as high as 200,000 at some times in the year.

Primary Schools

Mr. Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to alter his policy relating to the merger of primary schools so as to have at least three teachers.

Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend has no such policy. Decisions on those matters are essentially for local authorities.

Mr. Steel: Is the Minister aware that he will always be warmly welcomed in the Borders with his fishing rod in the increased leisure time that he will have from 12 June onwards, but that his last visit to my constituency has been widely misconstrued? The speech that he made at the opening of Newlands school, amalgamated with two schools two miles on either side of it, has been widely interpreted as meaning the first amalgamation of rural schools in scattered areas. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that that was not his intention.

Mr. MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman was present when I made my speech at that opening, and I think that he was as impressed as I was with the new school that was being built there. I would not embarrass him by asking him whether he was impressed by the speech, but I remind him of what I said in it. I said that there are some places, as in my constituency, where one-teacher schools are inevitable. That is our firm policy in the Scottish Office.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in helping such schools it is of great assistance that the pupil-teacher ratios are better than they have ever been before?


Will my hon. Friend further confirm that that also helps the unemployment problem because more young people are now leaving school with an educational qualification than ever happened under the Lib-Lab pact?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is quite right. The pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary schools in Scotland are at the best level that they have ever been. Indeed, we are seeing an increasing number of youngsters leaving school with qualifications.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister will understand that I did not have the advantage of listening to his speech, but I carefully read the press statement. In it, he makes it clear — presumably it is a highlight that he wished to emphasise by including it—that he thinks that schools with fewer than three teachers are educationally disadvantageous. There is a clear implication that he expects them to go whenever possible. I want to be clear that that is his position, particularly on 5 May the Secretary of State for Education and Science in England gave a writen answer in which he distanced himself deliberately from that position and made it clear that he thought that
geography; the distances to be travelled to alternative schools in the event of closure; and the age of the children making these journeys."—[Official Report, 5 May 1987; Vol. 115, c. 311.]
should be taken into account. Can the Minister do something to put a warmer face on the nasty accountancy approach that he seems to have been taking to those matters until now?

Mr. MacKay: Perhaps it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman was not present on that occasion to hear my speech and to see the school, but the position is as I stated to the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). Of course there are areas in which, inevitably, one-teacher schools will be the way in which local communities' educational needs have to be dealt with. It is clear that when there are any proposals for amalgamation from the regional councils, it is essential that the parents and other local interests are consulted and the decisions are taken along with the policy. For primary schools, where there is a distance of more than five miles between the closing and receiving schools, that case has to come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and myself. We then look carefully into the situation, and that includes asking the local Member of Parliament for his comments.

Mr. Donald Stewart: As the Secretary of State for Education and Science has recommended a reprieve for all rural schools south of the border will the Minister issue a directive or recommendation to local authorities in Scotland to the effect that a similar position should obtain there?

Mr. MacKay: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman, who is the leader of the Scottish National party, does not realise that there is a difference between Scotland and England. The Department of Education and Science put out a circular and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has announced a change in that position. Our Department did not put out a circular. Our position is the one that I laid down clearly a few minutes ago, which is that it is up to the local authorities to look at the issue. In my view—I made this perfectly clear in my speech in the Borders — if local

authorities are to change the school structure in the villages, they have to co-operate and take with them the parents in the villages.

Civil Nuclear Power

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the effect on electricity prices in Scotland of phasing out civil nuclear power.

Mr. Rifkind: The South of Scotland Electricity Board estimates that tariffs would have to rise by about 30 per cent. if civil nuclear power generation were to be phased out in Scotland.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that if Labour and the alliance got their way and scrapped nuclear power the high energy using industries would leave Scotland altogether? In particular, will my right hon. and learned Friend reiterate that if Opposition policies to scrap nuclear power are implemented the British pulp mill at Irvine will never go into production?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Liberal assembly voted to abandon nuclear power, and the Labour party also carried such a resolution. No doubt because of the damage that would be done to the Scottish economy by the Labour party's policy, the Scottish TUC refused to support the Labour party on this issue. The TUC has emphasised that it believes that Torness should be commissioned and that Hunterston should continue to be available. It has emphasised its belief that nuclear power must play a crucial part in meeting Scotland's energy requirements. The Scottish TUC has clearly rejected the views of the Labour party in Scotland on such an important issue.

Mr. Strang: Does the proposal put forward by the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning—that people living close to nuclear power stations should receive financial compensation—have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that any policy with regard to those near nuclear power stations that may be enunciated by the Government will apply throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Corrie: If nuclear power were phased out in Scotland, what effect would it have on employment in the generating industry? What effect could it have on employment outside the generating industry because of increased costs?

Mr. Rifkind: The best estimate of those who would be directly involved is of some 10,000 jobs in Scotland associated with the nuclear industry. In recent weeks, we have had the decision on Sizewell by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, which has led, for example, to Weirs announcing 200 or 300 extra jobs, to Babcock confirming that it would now not need to announce additional redundancies and to other such improved opportunities. Clearly, phasing out would have a devastating effect in Caithness, where about 20 per cent. of all employment is associated with Dounreay, which might explain why one alliance Member is strongly in favour of nuclear power although his colleague the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is strongly against it.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State accept that it does not help the economics of the SSEB to have the huge capital investment of Inverkip power station lying unused? Is he aware that Strathclyde region has suggested to the SSEB that it carry out a study into the feasibility of converting Inverkip to coal burning? Will the Secretary of State and the Government give every encouragement, both moral and financial, to the SSEB to carry out this important and valuable proposal by Strathclyde regional council?

Mr. Rifkind: The specific use of Inverkip is clearly a matter for the SSEB to determine in the light of its overall requirements. I was encouraged by the fact that when the SSEB made its announcement about Inverkip it said that it believed that those who would otherwise be employed at Inverkip could be re-employed elsewhere within the SSEB's activities. The future use of Inverkip must be a matter for the SSEB to determine.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about Sizewell, is he aware that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has made it clear that the alliance policy is against the Sizewell decision, despite the importance of the jobs for Renfrewshire and Glasgow, and that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) — I make nothing of the point that he is not here today, as he has many duties, for example, at Oxford university — has not dissociated himself from that statement? Is not the right hon. Member for Hillhead a disgrace to Glasgow?

Mr. Rifkind: Not only the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) but all alliance candidates in Renfrewshire and elsewhere in the west of Scotland must accept, as the Labour party must accept, that companies such as Weirs, Babcocks and many others which are heavily dependent upon such orders would suffer severe redundancies if the policies of those parties were implemented.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland and the Dundee travel-to-work area for the last available date; and what were the figures in May 1979, compiled on a similar basis.

Mr. Lang: There were 150,400 unemployed claimants in Scotland on a seasonally adjusted basis in May 1979 and 344,600 in March 1987. Unemployment data on a seasonally adjusted basis are not available for smaller areas.

Mr. Ross: How does the Minister feel about the fact that since the Government came to power unemployment in Dundee has doubled? How does he line that up with the recent decision of the Secretary of State to claw back £500,000 in rates from the Dundee district council? How many jobs will that cost the local community, particularly as the Secretary of State for Employment has withdrawn 450 community places? How many jobs will be lost in Tayside by his right hon. and learned Friend's decision to claw back £2·8 million from the Tayside region?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman would care to reflect on the number of jobs that have been lost by the high rates in Dundee, he might be nearer to the mark. Dundee has

featured considerably in the Government's plans to help people with training, employment and enterprise measures. Many schemes have been pioneered successfully in Dundee and it now has five job clubs. The Scottish Development Agency has launched a major initiative in the area and the area also has an enterprise zone. The consequence of that is a continuing and substantial increase in enterprise in the Dundee area.

Mr. O'Neill: Would the Under-Secretary of State care to reflect on the fact that in the past 12 months the number of people out of work in Clackmannan has dropped by six? What would he say to those who are employed by McKinnons, who had their hopes dashed by the parsimony of the Scottish Office in backing the bid that was put in for that group some weeks ago? How can he square his crowing about the fall in unemployment figures with the prospect of 150 jobs going down the river because of the failure to back a bid which may have guaranteed 1,000 jobs in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman can have absolutely no evidence for that claim, as my Department has been involved in making available assistance in the context of a takeover of that company. As to unemployment in Clackmannan, I have no doubt whatsoever that Clackmannan will share in the fall in unemployment, which is now so apparently widespread around Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Dundee travel-to-work area millions of pounds of public funds have been spent and an enterprise zone has been created since 1979? Does this not show that throwing public money at problems does not necessarily produce jobs? Secondly, does he agree that jobs are created by those who work and create wealth and that the additional rates imposed by the Tayside regional council will make it extremely difficult for the Tayside health board to raise the extra funds and will cost many jobs?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During my last visit to Dundee I was most impressed by the way in which some of the old jute warehouses had been adapted to provide accommodation for new, small, start-up businesses. The businesses are creating many jobs and seem to have a high survival rate.

Sir Russell Johnston: Should the mad caprice of the electoral system produce another Conservative Government, would the Minister be able to make any projection of a decrease in unemployment over the next two years, or is he just wandering around in a fog with no idea of where he is going?

Mr. Lang: On the contrary, we have a firm idea of where we are going. In the next Parliament we shall continue with the policies that are now yielding such great successes, as a result of which such independent organisations as the Fraser of Allander Institute and the CBI are now producing their most optimistic estimates of the economic situation for a long time.

National Farmers Union

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and what matters were discussed.

Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend and I attended the union's dinner on 12 March. I


addressed the annual general meeting the following day and had a further detailed exchange with the leadership and members.

Mr. Bruce: The Under-Secretary will recall that a delegation of myself and colleagues met him on 8 April and urged him, amongst other things, to support the increase in the suckler cow premium. I welcome the fact that yesterday the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a written reply to me, confirmed that that will be done, in response to pressure and demand from the industry, and indeed, from myself and hon. Friends. Will the Minister now acknowledge that although that is helpful, it does not resolve the crisis in the beef industry, which is looking for a double figure devaluation of the green pound? Will he give an assurance that he is pressing for that?

Mr. MacKay: I do not want to depress the hon. Gentleman's delusions of grandeur, but I remind him that it was the Government, with Agriculture Ministers at the December Council, who persuaded the Community to raise the ceiling on the suckler cow premium, which has allowed us to increase the amount to be paid this year from £24·74 to £33·40. That will mean that some £3¼ million more will go into the Scottish beef industry. The industry will welcome that and will thank the Government for their efforts in getting that.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that that increase of no less than 35 per cent. in the suckler cow subsidy is good news, but does he also agree that the Government's retention of the sheepmeat and beef regimes, lowering interest rates and the keeping down of inflation is also welcome news for Scottish farmers, who have been going through a difficult period as a result of the weather and for other reasons?

Mr. MacKay: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. One of the other important gains that we made at the December Council was to keep the beef variable premium scheme for the next two years instead of having to battle for it every year. My hon. Friend is also right about the need for a devaluation. We have made it clear that the 4 per cent. devaluation proposed by the European Commission is not enough. Our aim will be for a higher devaluation, certainly one higher than that for the French and Irish, who already have more MCAs than the United Kingdom.

Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister accept that the Government's record in rural Scotland is downright shameful? In particular, does he remember the description of the Government's position by the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland as
A botched-up, incoherent and chaotic set of policy decisions"?
Now that we have almost unprecedent depression and uncertainty in the farming industry, and growing chaos in the CAP, is the Minister aware that the industry will be far better off when it returns to the practical partnership on which it has always been able to rely under Labour Governments?

Mr. MacKay: I am always interested in the view of the landowner from Berwick on these matters. I should like to be a fly on the wall when he explains to farmers around Britain that the Labour party will rate agricultural land and considerably increase the cost to farmers. We have a good record on farming. Of course, there are difficult times

with surplus production, but anybody who thinks that there is an easy solution to that lives in cloud-cuckoo-land, which is probably where the hon. Gentleman does live.

Mr. Pollock: Does my hon. Friend agree that, above all, farmers seek confidence in their industry's future and reassurance about their prospects? Does he agree that he and his colleagues must be seen publicly to fight their corner on behalf of farming? Will he continue to give a commitment to fight vigorously to remove the distortion of the green pound and protect Scotland's vital livestock sector?

Mr. MacKay: I am well aware of the position of the beef sector and its importance to Scottish agriculture. Indeed, when I visited my hon. Friend's constituency earlier in the year and met his farmers they left me in no doubt about the importance of those matters and I left them in no doubt about the Government's commitment to the farmers and the rural economy of Scotland. That is shown clearly by the announcement that we have just made about the suckler cow premium and the reiteration that I have just made of the view of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on our aims in the current negotiations over the green pound.

Steel Industry

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss the tube manufacturing side of the steel industry in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: There are no plans for any meeting in the immediate future, but as indicated on previous occasions my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to continue to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation on a regular basis.

Mr. Hamilton: When the hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, will he remind him of the widely reported statement that a French company is trying to form a consortium with Clydesdale steelworks in my constituency and that, if the consortium is formed, 600 jobs will go from Clydesdale steelworks? Bearing in mind all the other redundancies that have taken place in Lanarkshire, does he not feel that it is incumbent on him to impress upon the chairman that it is vital that the consortium be made aware that the 600 jobs are saved?

Mr. Lang: I wish the hon. Gentleman a long and happy retirement when he leaves the House.
The press reports to which the hon. Gentleman referred are speculation. The BSC will be vigorously seeking additional orders for the steel capacity in this country, both at home and abroad. Any proposal would have to come to the Government for approval, and no such proposal has been put to us.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Road Deaths

Sir Russell Johnston: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what was the number of fatal accident inquiries concerning road deaths in the last year for which figures are available.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): As far as can be ascertained, in 1986 there were 13 road traffic cases which resulted in fatal accident inquiries being instructed.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Solicitor-General aware that many people are puzzled about the small number of fatal accident inquiries that there are in proportion to the number of fatal accidents? I understand that in 1986 there were 600 fatal accidents. Can he advise the House what criteria are used by his Department to initiate inquiries, because in many cases great stress is caused to individuals who suffer the loss of friends and relations because of a lack of knowledge as to exactly what happened?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If there are criminal proceedings following a fatal accident on the roads, in most circumstances it would be wholly inappropriate, either before or after such a trial, to hold a fatal accident inquiry. In some circumstances, under the Act there is a mandatory requirement that a fatal accident inquiry be held. A discretionary inquiry is held where it is considered expedient in the public interest on the ground that the death was sudden, suspicious or unexplained, or occurred in circumstances such as to give rise to serious public concern. It is under the last head, where a discretion is exercised, that such inquiries are held.

Royal High School, Edinburgh

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the number of people employed by the Crown Office at the old Royal High School building, Edinburgh.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The total number of persons employed in the Crown Office is 104.

Mr. Canavan: Although I realise that the Solicitor-General may be busy in the next few weeks looking for another job for after the general election, may I ask him to try to find time to look for alternative premises for the more important people who are employed at the Crown Office headquarters? After the general election the building will be required for the Scottish Assembly, which the Labour Government will set up and which the majority of the people of Scotland want because they are absolutely fed up with being ruled by a quasi-colonial Tory junta which received no mandate from the people of Scotland in the last general election, and which will be kicked out by an even more resounding majority at the next general election.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The only chance there is of significant movement is that of the hon. Gentleman from his seat, as the Labour party Front Bench will have to move below the Gangway to find somewhere to sit after the general election. I have indicated on previous occasions that the Crown Office will look for alternative premises some time in the future. There is plenty of work for the Crown Office to do and it is a perfectly satisfactory use of the building for the time being.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my hon. and learned Friend take steps, anticipating the high probability of his being returned and occupying his present position after the general election, to look at the possibility of his staff being employed elsewhere so that the Royal High School

building can be sold because a Scottish Assembly will have no part in the prosperous, competitive Scotland that the next Conservative Government will seek to achieve?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. As I have already said, there is another appropriate location in Edinburgh for the Crown Office. It is extremely unlikely that the existing building will ever be put to the use of a Scottish Assembly. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) should appreciate that while his party was in government it spent its time arguing strenuously about a Scottish Assembly but did absolutely nothing to reform the law in Scotland. Since 1979 we have introduced about 23 reports from the Scottish Law Commission. We have done a great deal more than the Labour Government ever did, with all their talking.

Project Zircon

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he is now in a position to say when he expects to receive (a) an interim and (b) a full report from the procurator fiscal on the progress of police inquiries in relation to Project Zircon.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: A number of reports have been received since 31 January.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not 101 days since the special branch moved into Queen Margaret drive? Is it not 105 days since the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman prominently displayed information about the likelihood of a police raid? Is it not 106 days since the Secretary of State for Scotland was first told what was happening? Is it not 107 days since Chief Inspector Ray Dowd of New Scotland Yard contacted Alan Protheroe of the BBC? Why have distinguished policemen in Strathclyde and the Metropolitan police failed to come up with anything?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know that the answer I have to give to the hon. Gentleman will not fit in with the bizarre preoccupations that he has over this matter and the gratutiously offensive things that he has said repeatedly and without any foundation or basis of fact about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I would have thought that the last honourable thing that the hon. Gentleman might do before the end of this Parliament is withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland accept that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as the Department responsible for Project Zircon, would be the aggrieved party in any action taken in relation to that project? I am sure that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is aware of Professor Bradley's view that the aggrieved party has a particular role to play in the case of any prosecution. Therefore, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what contact has been made with Ministers or officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ascertain their views on the matter?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My interest and that of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is to ascertain, through the procurator fiscal, following an investigation, whether there have been any breaches of the Official Secrets Act or any other offences.

Mr. Dalyell: The Solicitor-General for Scotland is just stalling for time.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I might be able to give his hon. Friend a reply.

Mr. Dalyell: Just be a Law Officer.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know what Professor Bradley has said, and on previous occasions I have indicated that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I disagree with what he said would be the appropriate steps to be taken with regard to contracting the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, more recently, as I have said, we are awaiting further reports, although some have been received. In that context, there is no further contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the great difficulties in the Zircon project investigation was the fact that the BBC linked the various programmes in a way that made it impossible for the searches to be carried out without having to look for all the related aspects? That complicated the inquiry from the outset and it was necessary that the instructions given to the procurator fiscal made it clear that that complication existed.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary addressed this matter in a debate some weeks ago he made it clear that the matter relating to the "Secret Society" programmes was so interwoven that that action had to be taken. As far as I am aware, the BBC has never publicly dissented from that.

Mr. Buchan: Surely this is a most shocking situation. It is three months and more since the most devastating invasion that has ever occurred in Britain, in which the hon. and learned Gentleman's Office was closely involved. It had all the appearances of a conspiracy and charges have been made about the Secretary of State for Scotland. After three months, and on the eve of their own demise,

the Government still cannot come forward with even an interim public statement. It is an absolute disgrace for the whole of Scotland.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not sure whether there was any question in the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, while the matter is being investigated, and while reports are being received, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who proclaims himself to be a protector of the interests and rights of the individual, would expect such reports to be carefully considered by Crown counsel before any action was taken. To make a statement about this matter in the interim could, in certain circumstances—and I am not saying that such circumstances will occur—be highly prejudicial to anyone wanting the right to a fair trial.

Mr. Dewar: The Solicitor-General may remember that when we last exchanged views on this matter at Question Time, he gave what I am sure was the inadvertent impression that all the material to allow the "Secret Society" series to be transmitted had been returned to the BBC. I understand that that is not true with regard to the Zircon programme. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that? Can he estimate when the material will be returned to the BBC, so that the BBC can proceed with showing that film?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Certainly, as I understand it, and I do not depart from this view, with regard to five of the six programmes, all the necessary material has been returned. There is what I believe is described as a principal transmission film of the Zircon affair programme which is still being held. Technicaly, I cannot say whether there is sufficient material in the hands of the BBC for that programme to be broadcast. However, I can confirm that the principal transmission film is still retained. In any event, I understood that it was the BBC's attitude that it would not broadcast that particular programme. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware of any change in the BBC's attitude.

State Security

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for the Prime Minister to set up an inquiry into the role of the late Airey Neave, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in relation to attempts to destabilise the elected Government in the 1970s.
The matter is [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Dalyell.

Mr. Dalyell: The matter is definite in that the authors of "The Pencourt File" which, as the Prime Minister rightly said, sparked off the 1977 inquiry into the security services, have been reported as having been interrogated by the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), the late Airey Neave and the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I refer to the article by Anthony Cheesewright which is in your possession, Mr. Speaker. That article is headed
Tebbit's joy at Wilson's plight.
The information has come to light since the Prime Minister turned down the call for an inquiry.
I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is important, because it raises the issue of obligations of hon. Members of this House in condoning trouble made for the elected Head of Government of this country by the security services.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bad taste."] I hear it said that this is in bad taste. I will openly say that the late Airey Neave was a friend of mine—[Interruption.] It is important also because a beneficiary of so much of the late Airey Neave's activity is the present Prime Minister —[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] It is unbecoming for such a beneficiary to turn down an inquiry demanded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Sir J. Callagham).

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dalyell: The matter is urgent because the then hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who seemed—and I put it politely—to acquiesce in the daily tricks of the 1970s, is now in charge of the Conservative party. In advance of the general election, could time be found for a statement as to whether the right hon. Member for Chingford is a reformed character in this matter? Has he changed his spots? A great deal has been written about this matter in the public prints. Before the House goes to the polls, we should have an answer one way or the other. There is a powerful lead letter in The Guardian today stating that there is an obligation of the kind for which I asked last Thursday for the clearance of the late Airey Neave. As the Leader of the House is present, there is an obligation for the clearance of the late Sir Maurice Oldfield.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration.
I have listened with great attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Not at this moment. I have received four further applications for debates under Standing Order No. 20 on the proposed poll tax in England and Wales. I propose to call only one—that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) which is in broad terms. According to "Erskine May", page 350,
A further application on the same subject on the same day … will not normally be accepted by the Chair.
I cannot therefore accept further applications on the subject of a poll tax in England and Wales, but I will hear the hon. Member for Blackburn.

Rating System

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely
the proposals for the poll tax in England and Wales and its differential impact in different regions.
The matter is obviously specific. The urgency is that the Government published a Green Paper, Cmnd. 9714, "Paying for Local Government", on 28 January 1986. They set a consultation period until 31 July 1986. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then Secretary of State for the Environment, said in the House:
The pace of further developments … will depend on the outcome of the consultation process."—[Official Report, 28 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 798.]
All local authority associations, including the Conservative-dominated Association of District Councils, have damned the proposals for a poll tax, and so have many others. Opposition to the poll tax in England and Wales is as widespread as it is in Scotland. Ministers, knowing this, have dodged and refused debates in the House, and any detail of the impact has had to be dragged from them. [Interruption.]
The importance of this is clear. A poll tax is unheard of in the western world outside the United Kingdom. It is a medieval tax. It will hit all those on low incomes, including widows, pensioners, families with adult children and the single unemployed everywhere. It will hit inner London and widen the north-south divide. [Interruption]

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The application is being made to me and I want to hear it.

Mr. Straw: A poll tax will aggravate inner-city problems. All 40 authorities which would bear the greatest burden of poll tax are to be found in inner London and in the metropolitan counties. The 20 authorities which would benefit most are in the south of England. I give just one example. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that under his proposals the same local tax bill would be paid for the same standard of service. Yet in Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale and Darwen and Hyndburn, the poll tax would be about £200 per head, twice the amount in Gillingham, Kent, where expenditure is only 33 per cent. higher.
The proposals in the Green Paper were made to this Parliament. Ministers should have the guts to debate them in this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent Consideration——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose——

Hon. Members: Throw him out.

Mr. Skinner: Oh, yes— not you; only Labour.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has caused me to lose my place—namely,
the proposals for the poll tax in England and Wales and its differential impact in different regions.
Again, I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Blackburn has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have we not now heard a complete abuse on two occasions of Standing Order No. 20? I submit that the last application was purely politics.
The first application was a smear against a former Member of the House whose crest is over the entrance to this Chamber. Would it not be in the interests of the House if some procedure were devised under which applications under Standing Order No. 20 were submitted to you in advance so that you could sift out what was bogus and what was not, before, in my submission, the rules of the House are completely and utterly abused, as has happened on these two occasions?

Mr. Speaker: The Standing Order No. 20 procedure is a prized time for Back Benchers and it must not be abused. However, those applications were submitted to me in advance and if they are in order I am bound to hear them.

Mr. Bill Michie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While fully accepting your ruling on the Standing Order No. 20 application by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in view of the serious implications for many families in the inner cities of England and Wales, would it be possible for you to use your good offices to influence the Leader of the House to make a statement some time this week?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House will have heard that. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As may well be known, on a number of occasions I have had reason to cross swords with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about points of order. However, I have never before heard him behave in such a disgraceful manner as he has done today. Would it not be proper, Mr. Speaker, for a reprimand to be given to him for behaving like a bounder and a cad?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's application was in order and it is up to him how he puts it. I shall take Mr. Marlow.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker, and a disturbing one. If there is to be a rat hunt in this House, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that vermin will not be found on this side of the Chamber.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not raise this point of order except that we are at the stage of Dissolution and it is a matter of some importance to the House. As you will appreciate, tomorrow is the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the election. A week ago today, after the right hon. Lady's statement, I wrote to her on behalf of

Opposition Members asking why, for four months, she told the House that no inquiry was necessary into the treason allegations when in fact an inquiry was taking place at the same time. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is usually meticulous in replying promptly to correspondence. I have received an acknowledgement, but not a reply from the Prime Minister —[Interruption.]— in the intervening week. Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, in which you can help us to ensure that, before Question Time tomorrow, we have information from the Prime Minister to explain why, for four months, she told the House far less than the truth?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has not raised a matter of order, but it will doubtless have been heard by the Leader of the House and by other right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench.

Later—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On another point of order altogether, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Well——

Mr. Faulds: A real point of order, unlike most that appear from the Benches opposite and these Benches sometimes. Could you explain to us, Sir: those of us who are eager to pay the normal courtesies to you — not eager to see you go, but eager to pay the normal courtesies in bidding you farewell and a very successful campaign for your return— when are we by this rearrangement of the old traditional procedures allowed to do so? Will it be late on Friday? Will it be early on Monday? Could the House and those hon. Members who are eager to pay their proper respects to you be allowed some sort of information as to when this is allowed to happen?

Mr. Speaker: This matter was raised yesterday and I propose to make a statement about it tomorrow. I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that on Friday I propose to remain in the Chair after the proceedings are at an end to greet and say farewell to hon. Members who may wish to do so. Furthermore, hon. Members who are retiring from Parliament and may happen to be here on Monday will be welcome to come to my house between 12 noon and 1pm for a glass of sherry.

Mr. Faulds: Those of us who will he returning to this place——

Mr. Dennis Canavan: What about those with no chance?

Mr. Faulds: Those of us who will be returning to this place who will, unfortunately, by other commitment be unable to bid you farewell on Friday, will we be welcome to your house, Sir, on Monday?

Mr. Speaker: I shall have to see whether I can afford it.

Appellate Committee (Proceedings)

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to raise with you, Sir, a point of order of which I have given you notice. As a courtesy, I have also given notice to the Lord Chancellor and to the Clerk of the Parliaments since they clearly also have an interest in the matter.
It is my submission that there is supposed to be published in the Official Reportof each House of Parliament, all proceedings in Parliament.
Members of both Houses are entitled to draw from, respectively, the Vote Office of the House of Commons, and the Printed Paper Office of the House of Lords, the Official Reports of the proceedings in Parliament of the other House: which Official Reports are also available for sale to the public.
The proceedings of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords are "Proceedings in Parliament": yet they are not available either to Members of the House of Commons, or to the public, as Official Reports. I would therefore be most grateful to you, as I expect many outside both Houses would also be, if you would be good enough to arrange for the proceedings of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to be made available to Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, therefore to the public in the same manner as are also the Official Reports of all other proceedings in the other House of Parliament.
I should like to add two points. Those proceedings are in no way analogous to private Bill proceedings. They are proceedings which define the public general law as passed by both Houses of Parliament. Secondly, Select Committees of this House as well as individual Members in debate may need to quote those proceedings, and it is both ludicrous and anomalous that they should have to rely on Times law reports, accurate or inaccurate as the case may be, of those crucial proceedings in Parliament, rather than on an Official Reportof them.
I do not expect you, Mr. Speaker, to be able to rule on this today; but I would be most grateful if it were possible for you to do so tomorrow. I am most obliged to you for hearing me.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: rose——

Mr. Speaker: On the same matter?

Dr. Blackburn: Yes, Sir. Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that he would wait for a decision, not only as an act of courtesy, but as this is a delicate matter. One of the cases bears on my constituency and relates to the motor industry. If that information was available, it would not only help planning and financial investment, but would have a direct effect on jobs in my constituency. Therefore, I take this opportunity to support my hon. Friend on this important point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) for what he has said and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for raising this important matter. I shall, indeed, look into it and do my best to make a statement to the House on this tomorrow.

Dangerous Substances

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the application of industrial hazard regulations to include all sites containing potentially dangerous substances; and for connected purposes.
First, I should declare an interest as president of the Association of Scientific, Technological and Managerial Staffs. This will be the last ten-minute Bill that will be presented before the Dissolution of Parliament. Nevertheless, it is an important measure.
My Bill would extend the role of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984. At the moment those regulations cover only 200 sites. Some 1,300 sites are not covered by those regulations, but they are covered by the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982. The difference between those regulations is that the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Regulations are much weaker. For instance, they do not include controls on the handling of dangerous substances. There is no requirement on them to draw up, on site or off, emergency plans concerning the public. Indeed, there is no requirement for them to inform the public as to what steps they should take during an emergency. It is only recently that the operators were required to notify the Health and Safety Executive, but thanks to pressure from the trade unions and the environmental lobby, operators can no longer keep them secret; they must reveal them, Even so, the public are not made aware of them.
If the regulations could be brought within the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984, operators would be required to do the following. They would be required to produce on-site and off-site emergency plans, provide information to members of the public about what to do if an emergency occurs and convince the Health and Safety Executive that the plant they operate is being run safely. Those requirements are good so far as they go, but they could be better. It is certainly an improvement on the other requirements. The effect of the regulations applies only to the larger plants that are handling chemicals in very large quantities. The other quantities that are being handled by smaller plants are just as dangerous but at the moment they are escaping these regulations. For instance, incidents involving liquefied petroleum gas, which is better known as calor gas, or half a ton of chlorine may be just as dangerous as incidents where chemicals are being handled in far larger quantities in major plants. My Bill would include the other 1,200 sites that are handling these dangerous chemicals.
The extension of the CIMAH regulations will have one further effect. It will reverse the Government's policy of reducing the numbers of Health and Safety inspectors. The Government have only just removed the ban on the recruitment of inspectors. That is disgraceful and callous, and shows an uncaring policy.
Another difficulty with regard to the Health and Safety Inspectorate is that their remuneration is pitched far too low at the moment, so there is a difficulty in recruitment. I hope that the increase that the Institution of Professional Civil Servants has applied for will be received favourably because it will increase remuneration and make it easier to recruit inspectors. There is a need for them. They are interested not only in remuneration but in health and


safety. Indeed, there is a great demand for that. Having fewer inspectors means that health and safety is going by the board. It is difficult to do a job and improve health and safety when at the same time we have a Government committed to deregulation and Victorian values.
In his recent report, the chief safety inspector said:
There is a disquieting increase in industrial accidents".
That is especially true of the chemical industry, for which the fatal and major accident rate has risen from 77·1 per 100,000 employees in 1981 to 104·3 per 100,000 employees in 1986. That represents an increase of 35 per cent. in the past five years. That means that human blood has been spilled on the floor of chemical plants and that is due to the cut in the number of health and safety inspectors that has occurred since the Government took office.
Recently there have been three major accidents. The BP Grangemouth explosions caused the death of three people. Houses 20 miles away were shaken by the explosions and people telephoned the emergency services in the belief that an earthquake had taken place. There was a serious fire at the Coalite plant — a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has frequently raised in the House. We discovered that, at that plant, dioxin was still stocked despite the fact that the company had said that it had got rid of it in 1968.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: 1978.

Mr. Hoyle: I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge.
The plant had claimed that it had got rid of its stores of dioxin in 1978, but that was not so. There was also a major fire at ICI Billingham, which killed one person.
If that is the state of affairs at major sites, one shudders to think what health and safety conditions are like at smaller sites; that is why I wish to bring those sites within the remit of my Bill.
If my Bill is implemented it will lead to the recruitment of extra factory inspectors. It will also lead to greater safety and protection not only for the people working on the sites but for the public. I believe that, unless something is done and such measures are adopted, sooner or later we shall have a British Bhopal.
I believe that the public have a right to know whether they are sitting on a time bomb. For that reason, I have introduced this Bill. I realise that, as it has been introduced so late, we shall not make much progress. However, with the general election on the way, I believe that the public have a right to know about such matters. Health and safety should be one of the major election issues. I hope that I shall obtain leave to bring in this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Stan Crowther and Mr. Richard Caborn.

DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES

Mr. Doug Hoyle accordingly presented a Bill to extend the application of industrial hazard regulations to include all sites containing potentially dangerous substances; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [11th February] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order [11th February], those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(2)Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, on this day before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

he motion provides for three hours of debate, which begins now. We must get through a large number of amendments, but the bulk of them are technical and drafting amendments. I believe that the period of three hours provides plenty of time for discussion of the issues of substance raised in the amendments. However, it would be unfortunate if we were to use up time discussing the allocation of time motion. I hope that the Opposition will agree that that is sensible.

Mr. Donald Dewar: As so often happens, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is wrong. We intend to say a little about the timetable motion. I assure him that we wish to leave adequate time to raise or amendments and ensure that they are debated. I find the allocation unsatisfactory, for reasons to which I shall refer in a moment or two.
I recognise the pressures on Governments and that Ministers like to get to their legislative programmes. I accept, too, that, on occasions, there are double standards

in speeches made in debates of this kind. I do not deny that, probably in a month or two, we shall use timetable motions and defend the principle, but we must examine the merits of every case as a matter of perspective— as a matter of keeping a sense of proportion. The Government have the duty to think about what is right for the House and for the parliamentary process. They have got the balance wrong on this occasion, and I shall attempt briefly to persuade the House of that fact.
The Under-Secretary of State briefly introduced his motion. It is a supplementary motion, tacked on as almost an afterthought to the main guillotine motion, which, of course, truncated the Committee proceedings. Normally the Leader of the House or the shadow Leader of the House would perform on such occasions, but this time we have had to be content with the Under-Secretary of State. I make no complaint about that, except to remark that he is rather more shameless in his approach to such matters than is the Leader of the House, who normally, probably because of long contact with the Prime Minister, has a certain self-deprecating style. He smuggles bad news and offensive material into debates in a way that is quite endearing. There is always an air of apology about such matters. He implies that he is only the messenger. The defence is always one of incrimination, that he is bringing the news from some other Minister. On this occasion, of course, the Under-Secretary of State is attempting to bungle through the remaining stages of a highly controversial measure in three hours, and three hours alone. This is not satisfactory, partly because of the enormously long consideration of the workability and practicability of the measure, both in the House and in another place.
The amendments deal with issues of genuine concern. During the long Committee stage, despite some of the misplaced sarcasm in an earlier debate, Ministers were forced to give ground. We now have a series of specific but important issues dealing, for example, with the definition of mentally handicapped, and with students, in the context of exemption from poll tax. The amendments raise complicated arguments; for example, about the definition of severe impairment. Why are we talking about mentally handicapped people, but not about physically disabled people? A range of issues are raised in the amendments and in the variations to the Lords amendments that have been put down by my hon. Friends and myself.
No one who has followed the debates, even in the most Cursory way, will fail to recognise that, in connection with the protection of the living standards of students, there are severe reservations about what the Government are proposing, even after the rather ill-defined and incomplete amendment. Such anxiety is not the preserve of the National Union of Students and individual constituents, but has been reflected by principals and vice-chancellors, who are genuinely concerned about the ability of universities to compete for students in the circumstances that the Government envisage.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would my hon. Friend care to consider the significance of the fact that, on this major piece of legislation, which drastically changes the rating system into this new poll tax idea, it is a matter of such importance to the Government that they have managed to muster three Back Benchers and one PPS to discuss these issues, that my admirable young hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), out


of his usual charitable inclinations, had to lend his backside to their Benches to make them look healthier; and, of course, that he was trying out a future position on those Benches in government?

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend has made a fair mathematical point with characteristic subtlety. He is right. There is a proper degree of diffidence among some Conservative Members about appearing in such debates these days.
The complicated matters to which I have referred and which we shall debate in a short compass have been swept up into a brief period of parliamentary time. The debate is taking place in injury time— the twilight days— with a Scottish Office team that is already living on borrowed time. The exceptions are not satisfactorily defined. We are still getting an enormous number of representations from people who have no political axe to grind but who are alarmed at what is happening. My first point is that the timetable motion does not give the House the opportunity it should have to consider, debate and reach a measured conclusion on such matters.
One other factor of a more fundamental nature must be canvassed. We are looking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said by way of an intervention, at a remarkable fiscal innovation. We are looking at an almost unprecedented poll tax, certainly in the sophisticated financial systems of Western Europe. It is a poll tax, and I use that term unashamedly. Presumably I shall no longer be criticised for doing so. It was given the Prime Minister's imprimatur only this week as the proper expression. I was delighted to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs refer to the "poll tax" in the proceedings last night on the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill. It is a poll tax. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to use that term. It is an imposition of so much per head, straight across the board. It is a tax that is widely seen as regressive and impractical. It has little support across the range of Scottish public opinion.
I recognise that the motive for introducing the poll tax—the volte face that we have seen since 1983 in Government thinking—is imagined electoral advantage. Conservative Members are wrong. It will be an unpopular imposition and will become much more unpopular over the next year or two, if it reaches the statute book and, even more relevantly, if it is ever implemented. I have made the point before that we know that an irreversible rise is built into the poll tax. With the treatment of commercial and industrial rates we shall narrow the tax base— the buoyancy factor — in a remarkable fashion. The poll tax will certainly escalate in a way that will greatly disappoint, and probably alarm, those who may calculate temporary personal advantage from it.
I make those points because the depth of opposition to, and the concern about, the tax puts a large question mark over the propriety of forcing the measure through in this way. From a large amount of independent evidence, we know that there is concern about its impact. I saw a report — I am sure that the Minister is familiar with it— from Professor Hughes at the department of economics at Edinburgh university. He did a calculation based upon, I gather, an extensive and cheerful survey of a sample of Scottish households to try to take into account the impact

of the social security changes that are so interlinked with the poll tax and rebate system, and the impact of the tax itself. His conclusion was that one needed a household income of well over £400 a week before one was likely to benefit from the changes. That underlines what I have said about its regressive nature.
I have another report. Again, it is from an area of the country that has not traditionally been seen as in alliance with my party. I refer to the plea—that is the correct word — from the convenor of the Highland regional council, whose planning department, according to The Scotsman,has come to the conclusion that the effect of the tax in the Highlands will be
staggeringly different from the Government's intentions set out in the Green Paper.
According to the department, up to 91 per cent. of households in the more remote parts would be worse off and the local taxation burden on such communities would rise by more than 230 per cent.
It is not just a plea from our heartland and support. We are articulating a view that is beginning to be painfully reflected in different parts of Scotland. I believe that the Government should even now think again. My plea is a simple one. I do not think it is right for Ministers to force the Bill through in this way and at this time. We all know that there is an election in only a few weeks' time. It would be best to suspend judgment on the matter now and leave it to the judgment of the electorate, to see what the people have to say about it. If the Bill is forced through with a last-gasp guillotine motion, we shall be lumbered with an unwanted and ill-advised tax that will be deeply resented.
Politicians talk — I did so a moment ago myself— about propriety, but that is too nice a consideration. There are deeper and more basic considerations here. It is a matter of a feeling for Scotland and respect for Scottish opinion, and it would be wrong to bulldoze the legislation through in the dying days of this Parliament. To do that would be to show the kind of insensitivity that damages trust, not in the Chamber, but in the communities of Scotland.
We unashamedly dislike the measure. It is wrong and we are implacably hostile to its implementation. We do not approve of the decision to force it through in this way. It is for those reasons and because we know that, on this and many other issues, we speak for such a wide coalition of Scottish opinion that I shall, in a while, invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the motion.

Mr. Alex Fletcher: I shall be brief, and I mean it—unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
I was surprised by the complaint made by the hon. Member for Garscadden, which was not about the shortage of time that is available' in this session of Parliament to discuss the legislation. It has spent many hours in Committee, in another place and in this Chamber. Presumably his objection is that, at this late stage in this Parliament, the House is making decisions on the final shape of the legislation.
I do not understand that objection. What could be fairer and more democratic than that the Government should put specific proposals before the electorate in Scotland about the community charge and the abolition of domestic rates? The proposals are in no way uncertain or ambiguous: they are specific proposals, enabling the voters in Scotland to know precisely what the choice is


between the present system of domestic rates and the community charge proposed in the legislation. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally fair-minded about these matters, should completely ignore the fact that, as we go into the election, there will be no doubt in people's minds about what the Conservative party is proposing in terms of the community charge, or about what the Labour and other Opposition parties are proposing—they are all proposing the status quo.

Mr. Faulds: rose——

Mr. Fletcher: I said that I would be brief, so I shall not give way.
The other parties are all proposing that we should keep the present system of domestic rates; the effect of that, as it is in Edinburgh, will be to increase again by 30 per cent. the cost of rates to many people who cannot afford that amount of tax.
The Government believe that the new system is a fairer way of raising local revenue. The Opposition believe that the present system is fairer. In the time-honoured phrase, we shall be going to the country now, and the thing to do is to trust the people.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who spoke of the coalition of interests in Scotland against the Government's proposals for reform of local taxation. I hope that, after the election, the hon. Gentleman will again talk of a coalition of Scottish interests, and will be prepared to participate in these discussions if the electorate decides that it is appropriate to have cross-party government.
Speaking about the timetable motion, the Minister has made the quite astonishing suggestion that the matters to be considered this afternoon are purely technical. They are far from that. Some of the amendments passed in another place go to the very heart of the Government's Bill and of the principles that the Minister has earlier stated. They go against the concept of universality — that everyone in Scotland must pay, whatever his ability to pay, at least 20 per cent. of the new poll tax. I do not see how the Minister can set that aside as purely technical, and no doubt we shall be discussing that in more detail later.
Since the Bill was considered in Committee and in another place, a number of further matters and representations have come to light which make it quite improper — I repeat the word used by the hon. Member for Garscadden—to proceed with the legislation in the face of the increasing evidence of the inequitable way in which the tax will operate, and the improper way in which it will bear heavily upon the majority of the Scottish people.
The study to which the hon. Member for Garscadden referred, by Professor Gordon Hughes of the university of Edinburgh's department of economics, makes it clear that the main burden of the poll tax will fall on those with gross household incomes ranging from 70 per cent. to 150 per cent. of the average household income. In other words, the bulk of the Scottish people will be cowering under the blows inflicted by this insensitive and out-of-touch Government.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: This is an all-too-short debate, and the hon. Gentleman should take up any matters that may concern him with the responsible Minister.
Professor Hughes stated, in conclusion:
It should be noted that, if the community charge is as expensive and difficult to collect as some fear, the average local tax burden of all groups will increase because of the high levels of the community charges required to replace domestic rates. The question of implementation must therefore he the main concern about the effect of this proposed reform".
Professor Hughes has raised issues that were raised in Standing Committee but were not authoritatively examined— certainly not by the Government. However, they were raised by Opposition Members of all parties.
It has also been made clear—some of the Lords amendments touch on the point — that the above-average increase in local taxes due to the community charge, in households whose heads are aged between 45 and 59, confirms the belief of many of us that the poll tax will bear heavily upon broad sections of the community which the Government have tried to suggest they were seeking to protect. In households whose heads are aged between 45 and 59, families with children over the age of 18 who are still living at home will bear the burden of the tax change.
These are authoritative objections and they go to the root of the proposals, which the Government have presented as an attempt to relieve the Scottish people of an unloved tax. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Sir A. Fletcher) wholly misrepresented the position when he suggested that other political parties in Scotland have not put forward alternatives. Not only has the Scottish National party put forward its proposals for a local income tax, but the two alliance parties have done so. Furthermore, in another place, the official Labour Opposition also supported proposals for the introduction of a local income tax.
In a series of answers to parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) on 8 April and, subsequently, from myself, the Minister demonstrated how right we have been to advocate local income tax. On the equalised figures that he has, most Scottish people living on the incomes that I have summarised, in the groups that are mentioned by Professor Hughes, will be substantially better off under the local income tax scheme.
No doubt this measure will be a centrepiece of the Prime Minister's speech in Scotland later this week. It was brought forward in a hurry without adequate consultation and without consent. Its sole aim is to seek to save the Government from the embarrassment caused by the revaluation that they put in hand.
The Scottish people regard this tax as anathema. That is one reason why the Conservative party in Scotland will go down to humiliating defeat on 11 June. The Minister who has been saddled with this measure may well prove to be its most spectacular victim. He has fought it through Parliament against the overwhelming opposition of all those hon. Members who represent the true interests of the Scottish people.
The impropriety of seeking in a matter of a few hours to wipe out a form of taxation which, though inequitable and unloved, has lasted for 200 years, beggars constitutional precedent. The Minister has done nothing for his own reputation or for that of the Government in seeking to proceed in the manner that he has proceeded today. There are many significant and substantive


amendments and they have to be considered in the all-too-short time available. Substantial debates cannot take place. The amendments touch upon the position of students and the definition of the registered disabled and mentally handicapped and cannot possibly receive proper consideration in such a short time.
I predict that if this measure is placed on the statute book it will not last five years. It will be repealed and replaced by a tax that is in accordance with proper principles of local taxation, related to an ability to pay. That reform will be welcomed by the people of Scotland as a whole. Even though the Labour party has not been in the van, it will follow us in introducing an effective local income tax.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall be brief, because many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. This measure is a kind of constitutional travesty. Never in the whole history of Parliament has a basic tax that is to be applied to the entire population of Scotland and in future to the population of England and Wales been treated with such contempt and brought in as a guillotined measure. It should be subject to measured debate rather than to the guillotine. It is a constitutional travesty to impose a guillotine of this magnitude in the very last syllable of recorded time in this most meretricious of all Parliaments and Governments. That is my first and most crucial point.
Secondly, this measure not only deals with taxation which per se should put it beyond this kind of behaviour, even from this Government, but affects the well-being of the majority of the British people. The figures were not given of those who would benefit and those who would not. On the scale of comparative poverty and wealth, in every case those who are rich will benefit and those who are poor will suffer.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: That is just rubbish. How can the hon. Government possibly argue that, when poor pensioners living in their family homes will find themselves considerably better off? How can the hon. Gentleman possibly argue that everyone who is poor will be worse off?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman should look at the position of poor pensioners in council houses and in some areas in his own constituency. I agree that in the case of four pensioners living together, one can make a comparison with less well-off households, but in 99 per cent. of cases the rich will benefit and the poor will suffer.
If the hon. Gentleman wants a comparison he can look at the rateable value on the Prime Minister's house in Dulwich. This measure will in future apply to England and Wales. It is precisely because it will be extended that it has been brought in in this desperate way. All the evidence is that the same pattern will be applied in England and Wales and as a result, the Prime Minister will be given £140 a month. This measure will hit pensioners, council tenants and people on below-average wages, but less than about 15 per cent. of the top earners will lose.
To benefit from this measure a person will need to earn about £558 a week. That is over £2,000 a month, well into £25,000 a year. The average family will lose. One thinks especially of comparatively poor families with children of

18, 19 or 20. They will lose. The additional rates on council houses in my constituency vary for a three-apartment house from £33 to £40 per month. For a four-apartment house the figure is £35 to £47 per month. The tenants of those houses, whatever their earning capacity, will be worse off to the tune of £20 a month for a couple and £40 to £60 a month if there is another earner. Compare that with the Prime Minister, who will benefit by £140 a month. Council house occupants in my constituency will face an extra bill of £20 to £60.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman seems to be basing his claims about gainers and losers on the present rating system. Can he tell the House whether he believes that the present rating system in Scotland is fair?

Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman had given us enough time to discuss this measure, we could have looked at alternative methods. At the moment, we are dealing with a measure rushed through at the very last point of time in order to obscure, among other things, the real horrors that are being applied. This is not the only aspect. This is part of the open manifesto, but we must also consider the Government's hidden manifesto. The Government claim that they will move from direct taxation to indirect taxation, which means value added tax, and that will hit the poor. Direct taxation has been cut, but the average taxpayer is nearly £7 a week worse off as a result of the increase in indirect tax.
The Government are trying to beat their hidden manifesto by running to the country and they do not have the courage to perpetuate their policies for another week. They are running to the country a year before their time in order to hustle through measures like this and avoid the measures that are clearly adumbrated in the hidden manifesto.
The Tory Commissioner in Brussels, Lord Cockfield, who is an appointee of the Prime Minister, is proposing to extend value added tax to books. At one time the Conservative party might have resisted that. It is also proposed to extend it to other publications, to babies' and children's clothes and to fuel and food. That is the background to which this tax has been rushed through.
I hope that the people of Scotland, who have been betrayed by the Government, will know about the results that we are seeing here and about the monstrosity that is being committed, and that they will reject the Conservatives at the polls in three weeks. This is a damnable and in many ways an unconstitutional measure and it will certainly hit the pockets of all the working people of Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am astonished at the speech by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). The hon. Gentleman never ceases to astonish me. He seemed to be arguing that pensioners who had saved a little money during the course of their lives and who are on low incomes should subsidise people in work who are earning good money. That is the substance of his argument. He seemed to be arguing in favour of retaining a rating system that he admits is unfair. I wonder why. The explanation is obvious. The hon. Gentleman likes the rating system because it allows his party to remain in local government and force pensioners and others with savings and low incomes to pay for the extravagance of his
colleagues in power in local government. He knows that when the Bill is on the statute book the game will be up for the Labour Left in local government in Scotland because no longer will those people be able to ask the minority to pay for their extravagance and their policies.
If, as the hon. Gentleman argues, the Bill is so unfair and so unpopular, why are he and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) so anxious to prevent it from getting on the statute book? If it is so unpopular in Scotland and if it will do so much harm, they have the ideal opportunity in the forthcoming general election campaign to convince the people. The reality is that, even in these last desperate hours, they are struggling to prevent the Bill from being passed because they know that it will be popular, even with those who will have to pay a little more, because the people of Scotland recognise that the system proposed in the Bill may not be perfect, but it is very much better than the rating system that we have. The people of Scotland are not so venal as those in the Labour party and the alliance, who think that, just because some people will have to pay a bit more, that is a reason for not having the legislation.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland does not want the Bill to reach the statute book because he does not want the people of Scotland to have a clear choice. He has regaled the House with long speeches— half an hour on Second Reading and goodness knows how many hours during the 120 hours in Committee. He has failed, despite repeated challenges, to explain how his local income tax would work. He say: "We in the alliance have said that we are in favour of a local income tax," but he has not explained how that tax would not result in people in rural areas paying far more towards local government than they will under the community charge or at present under the rating system. He has failed to do so despite repeated challenges. He says that it is not his job to define how local income tax will work. He wishes to prevent the Bill from reaching the statute book so that there will not be a clear choice for the Scottish people.
The clear choice is that if they return a Conservative Government, they will see the abolition of the rating system and a fairer system instead, whereas if the Conservative Government are not returned, we shall have fudge and mudge. However, the hon. Gentleman and his party will never form a Government and people will be left with the rating system ——

Mr. Maclennan: The people of Scotland, particularly those in the Highlands, know that although the rating system is bad, they will be substantially worse off under the Government's proposals. Dr. Arthur Midwinter has put to the Government the fact that seven out of 10 households in the Highlands region will pay substantially increased taxation as a result of the Government's proposals. That is a fact. On local income tax, the hon. Gentleman does not need a speech from me to draw attention to the facts, which demonstrate beyond peradventure that, under local income tax, the majority of Scottish people would be substantially better off than under the appallingly inequitable tax that the hon. Gentleman has been backing from the beginning.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is like a cheap ticket tout. He sought to intervene when I criticised him for not spelling out how his local income tax policy would work, yet again he has failed to do so. Instead, he makes

allegations about our policy and who would be disadvantaged by it. The hon. Gentleman fails to deal with the basic point, that, under his policy of a local income tax, people in the Highlands, with a narrow tax base, would pay far more than they will under the community charge or the present rating system.
In his speech on local income tax, the hon. Gentleman made great play about the effect on people with average incomes, but he does not seem to have noticed the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave, which shows that a local income tax would be a disaster for the people of Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to promote such a policy, that is his business, but he owes it to the people of Scotland to explain how it will work and how it will be to their advantage. The fact is that, for the vast majority of people in the Highlands who at present are suffering under the rating system, the community charge will be a welcome relief.
It is true that those who are in work, who are able to pay and who have contributed nothing to local government in the past, will be required to do so, but the hon. Gentleman does not take into account the effect of the community charge on local government itself. He seems to imagine that the whole thing is static. The fact is that when the politicians in local government are subject to accountability, when they know that every decision that they make will have an effect on the pockets of the people who elect them, they will behave more responsibly.
It is important that the Bill is passed, not only so that the people of Scotland have a clear choice, but so that local government is given a guiding light for the way forward. The way forward is to be responsible and accountable to the people. By all means let us make local government take decisions at local level; let us remove some of the controls on expenditure that have been imposed from the centre, as we do in the Bill; but let us recognise that it is only by bringing accountability to the system that we shall achieve that aim.
The Bill has been discussed ad nauseam in the House. This view has come not just from Conservative Benches; significantly, every newspaper in Scotland has commented on the lamentable opposition from the Opposition parties. Every commentator, every group——

Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why some of the points that we pushed so enthusiastically and unrewardingly in Committee now appear as Government amendments?

Mr. Forsyth: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman does his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) a great disservice. My instant reaction is that, based on the latter's performance in Committee arid his muddled thinking— at one point he had to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what his own amendment meant — it is not surprising that he did not score many successes in Committee. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) finds that the arguments in the other place were aired more successfully, I should have thought that that was a criticism of his colleagues, not of my hon. Friend who is putting forward suggestions for change. Indeed, the fact that there are amendments before the House shows that my hon. Friend is being flexible in considering the matter.
My criticism of the Opposition is that on Second Reading, in Committee and during the Bill's passage


through the other place, they singularly failed to come up with an alternative to what we have on offer. They have nailed their colours to the rating system, which is unfair, because it penalises people who improve their properties, those who have saved and those who have a stake in their property. It rewards extravagant and unprincipled Left-wing local authorities, in which I understand the hon. Member for Garscadden has some interest.
The people of Scotland are waiting for the Bill to become an Act. When it is, they will know that the hon. Member for Garscadden and his friends would repeal it if they won the election. I am sure that the people will give their verdict at the polls.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Unlike the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), I do not intend to speak for long. I remind him that one of the reasons why we shall vote against the motion is that it is unfair and unjust. It is the job of a parliamentary Opposition, with different constituencies, to oppose measures that we consider to be deeply damaging to our electorate.
To some extent, I was surprised to listen to the claims made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Sir A. Fletcher), followed by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and subsequently the hon. Member for Stirling. There were great calls to the Scottish people for the coming election. We know that the Bill would never have seen the light of day if the parliamentary majority in Scotland had control of legislation. It has been pushed through on the basis of English votes in the House of Commons because there is an overall United Kingdom majority for the Conservative party.
It is illogical for the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central, and for Stirling to say that it will be sufficient to put the matter to the test of the electorate. If the Conservatives won the election, but their numbers were decimated in Scotland, would the Government say that they would drop the legislation? Having put the matter to the Scottish people, would they say that the legislation had been rejected because there was not sufficient support at the polls? That puts to the test Conservative Members' assertions that they are putting something to the Scottish people. They are not. It is part of the programme for the British people, and if the Scottish people take a different view, they will have to like it or lump it. In this case, they will be lumping it. They will have to pay out a substantial sum in cash.
The Government are to leave it to the electorate and the people, but to which electorate and people are they leaving it? I have no doubt that in the coming election the Scottish people will reject not only the Conservative party but the piece of legislation on which it has pinned its hopes. Is it not a mark of the Conservative party's desperation that, two years ago, it was looking around for something on which to get a grip? The Conservative party, to its eternal discredit, has produced a piece of legislation that will have a vicious impact on the people of Scotland. It will cause distress and hardship.
The Government say that it is a choice between the rating system and the community charge, but I can envisage no benefit to the people at large from this new system. I accept the Government's arguments against the rating system, which has long outlived its usefulness and

any fairness. The Scottish National party and the alliance parties have proposed a local income tax, which would be based on ability to pay. The acid test will be whether it is fair. Will people have to pay more even though they may not have the income to do so? The abolition of domestic rates—much though I welcome the abolition—is spoilt by the introduction of the poll tax. If this measure ever comes into effect, the Government will bitterly regret what they have done. The dislocation caused will far out-measure any of the temporary embarrassments felt by the Government during the rating revaluation about two years ago.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am fascinated to learn that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) comes to the House to suggest that the business on which Scottish Members spend their time is not relevant to Scotland but is relevant to the whole of the United Kindom. We believe that our separate Scottish laws are important, so much so that we spend many hours on them in Committee — many more than the hon. Gentleman has ever done.
Labour Members have a commendable record for the way in which they work on legislation that affects Scotland. We may not agree with what they do, but we will not criticise their work load. Sometimes they put their points badly and do not present them well, and sometimes they fluff them. That has been their record on the Bill—they have not won the arguments or presented them well — but one cannot argue with the fact that Labour Members attend the Committees and apply themselves.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has a commendable record in dealing with Scottish legislation. Some of us think that, like most lawyers, he goes on a bit, but no one ever suggests that he does not carry out his duties properly and effectively. The hon. Member for Dundee, East is criticising not only Conservatives, but the Labour party, suggesting that Labour Members should not apply themselves so diligently to Scottish business because he judges it to be United Kingdom business. This is a piece of Scottish legislation and it is right that it should have been dealt with as it has been. Much time was spent on Second Reading and in Committee considering it.
The Opposition think that Conservative Members have suicidal tendencies, but that is not so. I invite Labour Members to tell me after the general election about their great pledge that they will win Tayside, North. That is called whistling in the dark anywhere else. The alliance candidate may have an argument with Labour Members, never mind me, on that.

Mr. John Maxton: I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman— he may just retain his seat, in which case he looks like being the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland after the election.

Mr. Walker: That is just about the most awful piece of nonsense to which I have ever listened. I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). He is probably one of the most able and clever Secretaries of State that we have ever had. There is no doubt that he will retain his seat comfortably. I believe that any honest individual in the House would accept the fact


that my right hon. and learned Friend will lead for the Conservatives in Scotland on this matter. He will be leading out front, as he does so ably and well.

Mr. Henderson: Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State can trust his No. 2 to handle the Bill effectively. Is my hon. Friend surprised that, during all the hours of consideration in Committee and on the Floor of the House, we still have not heard from the Scottish National party or from the other parts of the anti-Conservative alliance how their local income tax will work? Is it the kind of local income tax that will disadvantage the most deprived areas, or is it the kind of local income tax that will mean that people who live in areas of prudent local authorities will subsidise those who live in the areas of spendthrift local authorities?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The motion before the House is long and wordy, but I cannot find any reference in it to income tax. I hope that hon. Members will stick to the motion.

Mr. Walker: I do not want to be caught out twice in two days, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Once is enough. May I say that I regret that your comments yesterday have not been printed in Hansard and I hope that the matter will be put right. If one looks carefully, one will see that there is an omission at the beginning of the relevant business yesterday. The statement that you made and which I did not hear is not reported. I do not argue, but it should be printed. I just wanted to let you know about that, Sir. I have no wish to fall foul of you on two consecutive days——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the point that the hon. Member is making. I have not studied Hansard, but I assure the hon. Member that I shall and, if there is any fault, I shall seek to have it corrected.

Mr. Walker: I have no doubt that you will do that, Sir. The object of drawing it to your attention was to see that the record was put right.
I return to why there should be a guillotine and why the community charge will be of benefit to people in Scotland, especially in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister may be interested to know that the rate demands in Scotland went out within the past two weeks, certainly they did in Tayside. I have not heard a single unfavourable comment on the community tax, but I can certainly fill a barrel with the unfavourable comments that I have received on the rates increases that have just been inflicted on the citizens of Tayside by the Labour administration, assisted in that enterprise by the nationalists. The people of Tayside have no doubt who is attempting to protect their best interests. People in north Tayside believe that the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who cannot even attend the House when his Bill is debated, is not the type of individual who should comment ——

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman was not here yesterday.

Mr. Walker: Hon. Members may find it amusing, but from time to time I have a slight hearing defect, which is the result of my activities while I was on service for His Majesty. That is a matter of record, and I am not ashamed of it, but it gives me problems from time to time. I was present at that time, so that is not the problem.
It is unique for a party to go to a general election with legislation as interesting and, perhaps, as controversial as this, but it would be barmy even to think that any party would be so foolish as to do so if it did not genuinely believe that the new system was a substantial improvement on the existing system of local government taxation. Rates are unpopular with the public at large and people have condemned them, particularly the few who have to pay vast sums.
The Labour party has used the rating system more effectively than has any other local government party because it recognises that it can buy votes by spending other people's money. I congratulate the Labour party on having done that so successfully. Labour party Members are troubled because, if the system is changed, they will have the same opportunity to buy votes as they have done in the past. Everyone over the age of 18 will be required to contribute, which can only mean that they will take an interest in how the money is spent. Even those who are given income assistance in the form of rebates will take an interest because of the fact that they have to make a contribution.
The contribution is approximately the same as the cost of a television licence. There are figures on how many television licences exist among the lower paid, pensioners and those on supplementary benefit. I have no doubt that they will be capable also of paying the community charge, or at least the reduced rate that they will be required to pay. The people who will pay the full amount are those who can afford to pay. I have three adult daughters who enjoy the benefits of local authority services, and I think it is right that they should pay for them.

Sir Russell Johnston: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is right that someone on a low wage should pay exactly the same as someone who earns an enormous amount of money?

Mr. Walker: I can explain that easily. Much of local authority expenditure comes from central taxation. Those on high incomes—whatever "high" is; it is relative—pay more income tax and buy more expensive products which carry more value added tax. Therefore, they contribute handsomely to the coffers of central Government. As it is the central Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, who pick up the bulk of the cost of local government services, it can be said that those on higher incomes are already making their contribution through central taxation.
The big problem with linking local authority expenditure to rates is that other local government expenditure affects central Government taxation. I mentioned earlier today that the Tayside region has put up its rates, which will put an unbearable additional burden on the Tayside health board. The board will have to find an additional £500,000, which means that £500,000 less will be spent on health services and facilities. The ratchet effect of this has meant that the Government have had to find a way to ensure that central Government expenditure is properly funded, as it is through taxation — that is, personal income tax, value added tax and corporation tax on profitable companies.
Those taxes fund the central Government's contribution to local government expenditure, so taxpayers who pay higher rates of tax are able to say, with hand on heart, "I am paying for my proper share of services." Anyone who uses additional facilities, such as


water, has to pay for the amount consumed, as determined by the water meter. Many provisions are available to cater for that, so it is right that those who can afford to pay should pay equally. In other words, those who use the same services should pay equally, and those who, for whatever reason, require income assistance — whether through supplementary benefit or in some other way—are catered for in the same way as students and others who have special requirements.
My hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the way in which he has dealt with those who have special needs. I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have dealt with these matters. I am delighted that the Bill will be on the statute book as an Act before we go to the country.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Member answer this question : if the Scottish people reject his Tory party at the next election and, by some mischance, the people of England return a Tory Government, will he demand that his Government withdraw this measure?

Mr. Walker: That is a nonsensical question, but I have no hesitation in answering it. I expect the Conservative party to do as well in Scotland as it did in 1983, if not better. I shall not make unrealistic claims——

Mr. Norman Hogg: Why not? You always do.

Mr. Walker: I shall not make unrealistic claims, and I shall not be tempted by the less than silent Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we expect to do well and to return as the Government. I expect to be sitting in my place as the hon. Member for Tayside, North and I look forward to looking into the eyes of those hon. Members who are fortunate enough to return to the Labour Benches and to see whether they enjoy again their term in opposition.

Mr. Ancram: In the few moments left before the debate ends, I will respond to some of the points made during——

Mr. Hugh Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any reason for calling the Minister at this stage? There is nothing in the rules to suggest that the rest of us should not be called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Standing Order requires this debate to be concluded one hour after its commencement, which will be at 4.58 pm.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an extremely important and radical piece of legislation. A number of us are very eager to speak; not only Members for Scotland but Scottish Members who represent English constituencies, because the implications of the legislation will spread into England. It is quite improper if, to help the Government's funk in running to the country, parliamentary discussion is prevented and that this is pursued and allowed by the Chair. We must have an opportunity——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not reflect on the Chair in that way. I am the prisoner of Standing Orders. I have to carry out the Standing Orders which have been agreed to by the House. The Standing Orders govern the timetable.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Sir. When will we have the opportunity to revive this debate, because it is an extremely important and very radical measure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman now is, I must say, abusing the time of the House. I told him quite clearly that I am bound by Standing Orders, as is every other hon. Member, including him.

Mr. Ancram: During this debate we have heard nothing but black propaganda from the Opposition parties.

Mr. David Lambie: Could you quote the Standing Order on which you base your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not refer to Standing Orders unless I had made sure that I was acting in accordance with them.

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings
on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question,
pursuant to the Order. [11 February]

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 176.

Division No. 164]
[5 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Corrie, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Critchley, Julian


Ancram, Michael
Crouch, David


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Tony


Best, Keith
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fallon, Michael


Blackburn, John
Farr, Sir John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brinton, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Franks, Cecil


Browne, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bruinvels, Peter
Galley, Roy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buck, Sir Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Greenway, Harry


Carttiss, Michael
Gregory, Conal


Cash, William
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, W. S.
Hannam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harvey, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Haselhurst, Alan


Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Colvin, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, John
Henderson, Barry


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Robert






Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Raffan, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Rathbone, Tim


Hirst, Michael
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Renton, Tim


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rhodes James, Robert


Holt, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Rowe, Andrew


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Ryder, Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Latham, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speed, Keith


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spencer, Derek


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David John
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Madel, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marlow, Antony
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Marshall. Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mather, Sir Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Hon William


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Waller, Gary


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walters, Dennis


Mudd, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Neale, Gerrard
Warren, Kenneth


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Newton, Tony
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitfield, John


Norris, Steven
Whitney, Raymond


Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Osborn, Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Wolfson, Mark


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Woodcock, Michael


Pollock, Alexander
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powley, John



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tellers for the Ayes:


Price, Sir David
Mr. Gerald Malone and Mr. Michael Portillo.


Proctor, K. Harvey






NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Heffer, Eric S.


Anderson, Donald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Ashdown, Paddy
Home Robertson, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Johnston, Sir Russell


Barron, Kevin
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Beith, A. J.
Kennedy, Charles


Bell, Stuart
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Kirkwood, Archy


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lambie, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Lamond, James


Blair, Anthony
Leadbitter, Ted


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Leighton, Ronald


Boyes, Roland
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Livsey, Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McCartney, Hugh


Bruce, Malcolm
McGuire, Michael


Buchan, Norman
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Caborn, Richard
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maclennan, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
McNamara, Kevin


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McTaggart, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McWilliam, John


Cartwright, John
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marek, Dr John


Clarke, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clelland, David Gordon
Martin, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Maxton, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Coleman, Donald
Michie, William


Conlan, Bernard
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Crowther, Stan
Nellist, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
O'Brien, William


Cunningham, Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Dalyell, Tam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Parry, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Radice, Giles


Douglas, Dick
Randall, Stuart


Dubs, Alfred
Raynsford, Nick


Eadie, Alex
Redmond, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Faulds, Andrew
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fisher, Mark
Robertson, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Forrester, John
Rooker, J. W.


Foster, Derek
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Foulkes, George
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Sedgemore, Brian


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sheerman, Barry


Freud, Clement
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Garrett, W. E.
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gould, Bryan
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)






Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Michael


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Stott, Roger
Wilson, Gordon


Strang, Gavin
Winnick, David


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Taylor, Matthew



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Wallace, James



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House [11th February] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order [11th February], those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, on this day before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

2.— (1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to First Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the c Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any. Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

VALUATION ROLL NOT TO INCLUDE DOMESTIC SUBJECTS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, after "the" insert financial".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 14, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34 to 36, 40 to 48, 51, 53, 55 to 62, 65, 68 to 77, 79 to 109 and 117 to 132.

Mr. Hugh Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In case there was any misunderstanding when I intervened on a previous point of order, in no way was I challenging your ruling. We should all have known that the debate was limited to an hour. I confess that I was not aware of that, although I did know that the time taken on the guillotine motion was to come out of the time for debate. If there was any misunderstanding, I apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would never expect him to reflect adversely on the Chair.

Mr. Ancram: I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) that he and I are in the same position. During the past two debates on the Bill — the one on Third Reading and the one that has just finished— we were both talked out by others in the Chamber. This is the first occasion, therefore, that he and I have had to speak on the Bill for some time.
Hon. Members of an arithmetical frame of mind may have noticed already that the first group contains nearly 100 amendments, or about three quarters of the total number made in the other place. The very first amendment, which changes a reference to "year" in subsection (1) to "financial year", reflects very well the general nature of the amendments in the group, since they are essentially of a drafting and technical nature and make no changes of substance to the Bill as it left the House. The House may be relieved to hear that I do not intend to describe each amendment in the group individually. They fall into fairly well defined categories, and I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House if I confine my explanation to those categories.
First, as I have mentioned, there are the amendments concerned with references in part I of the Bill, which includes schedule 1, to the expression "year". At present clause 6(1) provides that "year" is to mean the financial year of a local authority. However, in view of the proposed relocation in clause 26 of the definitions now in clause 6(1) — for which amendment No. 26 paves the way — the appropriate references in part I of the Bill to "year" in relation to a local authority are now being changed to references to "financial year". This is the approach already taken for the other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Most of my colleagues have spent many hours on the Bill. As a newcomer, may I ask why it is said more and more that the administration costs of the proposals are enormous and far greater than was first thought by the Government? The definition of "year" creates great difficulties when people are moving from accommodation to accommodation. Do the Government think that the financial difficulties of administration are greater than they first thought''

Mr. Ancram: In Committee, representations were made to us not only by hon. Members but by outside bodies, such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, that the complications of administration were compounded by the proposal in the Bill at that time to have a transitional period of three years when there would be two systems running in tandem. Because of the valid concern about the cost and complexity of administering two systems together, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decided that we should get rid of the transitional period and go for the clean break in 1989. Some of the major concerns put to us by local authorities and others who would have the responsibility of administering the legislation were met by that decision, which was carried through by my right hon. and learned Friend on Report.

Mr. John Maxton: With respect, the Under-Secretary failed to answer the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He answered the question about running two systems. That is perfectly fair, and we accept that. But it does not answer the question that, standing on its own, it is going to be a much more expensive system to administer than the present rating system. Is that or is that not correct?

Mr. Ancram: We have never said for a moment that this was going to be as cheap to collect as the rating system. Nobody could deny that the rating system has the virtue of being simple and easy to collect. Obviously the community charge is going to he more difficult and, therefore, more costly to collect. Although I was not alive at the time, I am informed that the window tax was a very simple and easy tax to collect. However, that was no justification for keeping it, as it really was a tax that nobody could justify. To argue against the introduction of a community charge on the basis that it will cost somewhat more than the rates to collect, rather than to compare the fairness of the present system with the fairness of the community charge, is the Labour party's last faltering attempt at opposition, which it has failed so constructively to do up until now.

Sir Russell Johnston: Before the Under-Secretary of State leaves that point, will he help the House by telling us, roughly speaking, how much more proportionately it will cost?

Mr. Ancram: This does not arise directly out of the amendments. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the debates in Committee he will find that this was discussed on a number of occasions and that estimates— they have only to be estimates—were given. I do not have them to hand, because they do not arise out of these amendments. However, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives the information that was made available in Committee.
The second series of amendments deals with the definition of the term "rates". The main amendment here


is No. 77, which provides a general definition of "rates" to mean the non-domestic rate under clause 3 and the non-domestic water and sewerage rates with which schedule 5 to the Bill is concerned. What is intended is that wherever the word "rates" appears in statute, unless the context otherwise requires, it will have this meaning. It will be clear when the context is concerned with local government finance and with rating, and consequently when rate means those three forms of non-domestic local taxation or assessment, as opposed to simply an amount or standard.
The introduction of a general definition of the term "rates" has, in turn, required a number of consequential amendments to other provisions in the Bill. Those are the subject of amendments Nos. 72, 85 to 87, 89, 92, 96 to 102, 105 to 109, 127 to 129 and 131 to 132. I could give hon. Members examples of those amendments if they wish, but I rather gather that the House would wish me to proceed to the third category of amendments.
The third category of amendments in this group continues the theme of refining the Bill's provisions regarding definitions. I have already mentioned amendment No. 26, which paves the way for the amalgamation of clauses 6 and 26 so that the Bill will contain only one clause containing definitions of the terms which it uses. I am sure the House will agree that, in terms of legislation, that is a useful and constructive amendment. The other amendments in the category are Nos. 69, 70,71, 74 to 76, 88, 91, 93, 95 and 103.
The fourth category comprises a series of drafting and consequential amendments relating to what will shortly become the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. This covers amendments Nos. 80 and 117 to 124. In general, these amendments parallel the provisions for the recovery of rates in section 247 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, as replaced by paragraph 1 of schedule 4 to what will become the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987.
The new clause contained in amendment No. 80 makes amendments to relevant parts of the Debtors (Scotland) Bill itself. The general effect of these amendments is to ensure that procedures and definitions relating to the recovery of community charges parallel those in the Debtors (Scotland) Bill for the recovery of rates. The amendments raise no new issues of principle and seek simply to apply to the community charge system the reformed system of diligences in the Debtors (Scotland) Bill 1987.

Mr. George Foulkes: When the Minister explains it like that and in this environment it sounds very clinical and reasonable. Can he explain exactly what it means? What will it mean in circumstances where someone has not paid and the sheriff officer comes to his house and kicks him out on to the street with all his furniture? What will it mean for ordinary people who are caught in that sort of net? Will the Minister spell it out instead of reading the civil servant's description? Will he put it in graphic words, more human terms, so that an ordinary person can understand?

Mr. Ancram: It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman at this debate. Had he been to some of the other debates we have had on the Bill, he would have had the answer to his question in full and in detail. Indeed, had he attended—I suspect from his question he did not—the proceedings in the House on the Debtors (Scotland) Bill 1987, he would

be well aware of the new provisions and systems of diligence that are being introduced. Many of them are being introduced as a result of the Scottish Law Commission's report, which I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman has supported in the past and called for the Government to put into legislation.
I am sure that the fact that we are now making sure that the forms of diligence that are operable under this Bill match those within the Debtors (Scotland) Bill on the matter of rates is something that the hon. Gentleman will welcome. I am convinced that, given his history on this matter, had we not done that he would have been the first to criticise us. As I said, I welcome the fact that he is here and I am sure that he will be able to read the lengthy debates we have had on this matter in the past. However, I am sure he would not wish to bore his hon. Friends by a repetition of those debates.
The last category of amendments in this group comprises a series of drafting and technical amendments. One example would be amendment No. 73, to clause 26, which makes an adjustment to the definition of part residential subjects. At present, the definition opens with the phrase
lands and heritages which are occupied partly as the sole or main residence of any person".
The amendment would substitute the word "used" for "occupied". The difference is perhaps a small one, but the term "used" creates greater consistency of terminology within the Bill.
Again, amendments Nos. 34 to 36 and 43 to 45 clarify the circumstances in which long-term tenants may be liable for the standard or collective community charge. At present, tenants may be liable if the premises
have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more".
That could be taken to imply that a lease would have had to run for 12 months before any question of a tenant's liability arose. As hon. Members will recall, that is not our intention, and the amendments simplify the provision to make the tenant liable when premises
are let for a period of 12 months or more"—
that is, when a lease for 12 months or more exists, the tenant is liable.
None of the amendments in this group has any significant policy content. Taken together, however, they do represent a significant improvement to the Bill, particularly as regards its organisation. In many cases they arise from criticisms or comments that have been made, either here or in the other place. They leave the Bill very much clearer and sharper. As I said at the beginning, they are largely technical. That is why, with respect to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I did not go into a great deal of detail about the individual provisions within the amendments. I am glad to commend them to the House.

Mr. Maxton: I accept that these are largely technical amendents, some of which we asked for, some of which were asked for elsewhere and some of which were asked for by our technical experts outside. They do improve the Bill. However, one would have thought that when the Government were changing definitions in the Bill and making them more precise and exact they might have introduced an amendment, now that it is accepted, to take out the term "community charge" and put in the term "poll tax". After all, as that is what the Prime Minister now clearly calls it, why should we not call it the same? It


is what the author called it when he originally wrote his articles. The Government do not do that because in previous White Papers they have rejected it.

Mr. Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not just the Prime Minister who calls it a poll tax? Yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also referred to it as a poll tax.

Mr. Maxton: I accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has referred to that point.
The Minister studied history, as I did, and I believe that it was at the same university. It has always been my view that the window tax was nearer to the poll tax because of was difficult to collect and easy to evade and was given up simply for that reason.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has made the valid point that this amendment should be made. These are not community charges because they are not spread across the community in any sort of equity. They are the introduction of a poll tax. There is no way in which that can be denied by the Government. Even the Prime Minister in her last moment of remorse has put the proper title to this charge.
It is quite clear that the Conservative party in Scotland, or what is left of it—they are now all members of that rather selective and dying species, a small group called the league of lemmings—will not be in the next Parliament to answer the recriminations from the people about these issues. It is quite improper that this enormously radical change in the raising of local revenue should be introduced in the inappropriate terminology of a community charge when it is nothing of the sort. The word "community' suggests a sort of fairness in the measure; but, of course, there is no fairness in a measure that introduces a retrogressive tax, a poll tax, which no other Parliament in Europe—indeed, in the civilised world—has dreamt of introducing. It is a measure of the reactionary nature of modern Toryism—not the old Toryism of Disraeli, with his one nation—under the present Prime Minister, about which numberless Conservative Members are extremely unhappy but have not got the guts or the gumption to attack. It is quite unacceptable that these very radical changes should be introduced in a House as empty as this one is when the implications for England——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are dealing with Lords amendments of a very narrow sort. I hope that he will address himself to the Lords amendments.

Mr. Faulds: I have ranged a little broader because the implications of this legislation will, in the unfortunate eventuality that the Conservatives get back, be applied to England and Wales. I am the only Member in the House this afternoon representing an English constituency. The fact that I happen to be a Scot is one of those fortunate accidents of fate, because most English constituencies do rather better in their representation if they are represented by a Scot rather than by the half-educated English.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Tell that to your constituents.

Mr. Faulds: They are well aware of that and they return me with unfailing regularity, as I have no doubt they will at the next general election.
I simply want to make the point that on the question of the amendments, to use the phrase "community charge" is misleading not only to the House but to the wider electorate outside. It should be rephrased to use the exact description, which is "poll tax". I hope that during the election campaign the point will be made about the implications of a poll tax for every individual in Britain—not just in Scotland, but in England and Wales. It will be massive in terms of the effect on the charges they are going to have to pay to raise local revenue.
It would have been more responsible of a more responsible Government—which, of course, we do not have — had these measures been examined in great detail. Every single aspect of the raising of local revenue should have been examined to see how a more equitable system than the rating system could and should have been introduced.
With that, Sir, because I see your eye looking somewhat averse at me, I shall end my comments on this amendment in the hope that we will have another chance to raise these massively fundamental issues of how local revenue should be raised.

Mr. Ancram: It would be less than kind if I did not respond to the first English intervention on the Bill.

Mr. Faulds: Scottish on the part of the English.

Mr. Ancram: Whether it is Scottish on the part of the English——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was, in fact, born in Tanganyika.

Mr. Faulds: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you make my argument for me. Not only do the Scots have to represent English interests, but the Scots also have to show the rest of the world how to conduct their lives to a better purpose. The fact that my father was a Scottish missionary only underlines the importance of the point that I am making.

Mr. Ancram: I am interested to learn the origins of the species of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I have a close link with the hon. Gentleman, because he was once at school in my constituency and I am sure that that is where he managed to adopt the accent with which he entertained the House.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Warley. East mention the word "equity". I understand that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on that subject. The hon. Gentleman raised the serious question why there is not an amendment about the words "poll tax". He wanted to know what was fair about a flat rate. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in many walks of life there are flat rates. We pay a flat-rate television licence. We pay the same rate of excise duty on the petrol and drink that we buy and, if we happen to smoke still, on the tobacco that we smoke.

Mr. Rifkind: And on VAT.

Mr. Ancram: Indeed, as my right hon. and learned Friend reminds me, on VAT. There are many examples of flat rates. We should look for the ability to pay not within the context of the community charge, but within the context of the largest proportion of local government expenditure and from where that is financed, namely, the central taxpayer where the ability to pay is underwritten throughout.
The hon. Member for Warley, East said that after the election, whether my right hon. and hon. Friends constitute the Government, there will be recriminations against the imposition of the charge. He echoed the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that Scotland would be lumbered with the community charge. I am delighted to hear Opposition Members say that. That shows that, in their heart of hearts, they believe that the Conservatives will win the general election.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 14 agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Clause 5

STATUTORY AND OTHER REFERENCES TO RATEABLE VALUES ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 4, line 46, leave out from "the" to "value" in line 47 and insert
assessed rental or, as the case may be the gross annual, net annual or rateable

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 25.

Mr. Ancram: This group of amendments to clause 5 are also technical. The most significant are numbers 15 to 19, which introduce into subsections (1) and (2) the concept of "assessed rental". This term has not had any relevance to valuation for rating purposes since the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, but it still appears in a number of deeds of condition for tenement properties, particularly in the west of Scotland. It was accordingly suggested by the Property Owners and Factors Association of Scotland, and by the Law Society of Scotland, that the absence of any translation of the term "assessed rental" in clause 5 might create practical difficulties, and it seems sensible that the Bill should seek to avoid this possibility. The amendments also have the effect of clarifying the meaning of "assessed rental" by equating it to "net annual value" in all cases.
The purpose of amendments 20 to 23 is to ensure that, for the purposes of subsection (3) of clause 5, references in enactments to gross annual value, net annual value or rateable value take proper account of material changes of circumstances affecting the value of the property concerned. Amendment No. 24 is also of a technical nature. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the clause refer specifically to the appearance of net annual values in the valuation roll. Although valuation rolls must have a column for net annual value, assessors do not have to put a figure in that column if net annual value is the same as rateable value—as it is in most cases—so there would be difficulty in operating clause 5 where the net annual value column has been left blank. The amendment would require that in such cases, references in the clause to the appearance in the roll of net annual value should be taken as references to the appearance of rateable value.

Mr. Foulkes: Put a bit of emotion into it.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) may find this point very

complicated, as indeed it is for the uninitiated in the law. However, it is of great importance to those who operate the law, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that these are useful amendments.
The final amendment in this group, Lords amendment No. 25, defines the terms "gross annual value","net annual value" and "rateable value" for the purposes of clause 5 only. Given the purposes of clause 5, it is clearly necessary that the values be calculated on the basis of the law in force immediately before the domestic valuation and rating systems are abolished, and I am pleased to say that the amendment achieves this. As I have explained, the amendments in this group are largely technical. They make a number of useful improvements to the clause, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Very briefly, I want to inquire why the amendments were introduced in another place so late in the consideration of the Bill. If they are as important as the Minister has suggested, did they not occur to the Minister prior to the introduction of the Bill? If not, is that not evidence of what the alliance has been saying all along—that the Bill was ill considered and rushed in judgment?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would have found that these are detailed points of law. The term "assessed rental" has not had any relevance to valuation for rating purposes since the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956. We are therefore very grateful to the practitioners who are concerned about such matters — for example, the Property Owners and Factors Association of Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland. Those two bodies drew these points to our attention. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would welcome the fact that we have taken those representations on board.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 27 agreed to.

Clause 8

LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL COMMUNITY CHARGE

Lords amendment: No. 28. in page 7, line 25, at end insert—
( ) A person undertaking a full-time course of education shall, in respect of the period beginning when he undertakes the course and ending when he ceases to do so, be liable for only such percentage as may be prescribed of the amount of the personal community charge for which he would otherwise be liable.".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is not a signatory to amendment (g), and he therefore cannot move it. None of the signatories is present. With Lords amendment No. 28, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 32.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Amendment No 28 responds to concern expressed in another place about the position of students. It was argued that liability to pay the full charge could act as a marginal, but possibly significant, deterrent to overseas students


thinking of coming to Scottish universities. There was also the question whether home students should be liable to pay the community charge. Some noble Lords argued for complete exemption, others for 100 per cent. reimbursement through the grant mechanism. The view was forcefully expressed that to make students liable and increase their grants to enable them to pay the charge involved needless additional administration and that our original proposal, which I explained in Committee and on Report, for a flat incrase in grants based on the Scottish average, could lead to some unfairness.
In light of the arguments advanced in another place, which were reflected in amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, which was not moved, we cannot accept that students should be totally exempt. We remain clearly of the view that, like other adults, students must make some contribution towards the cost of local services which they use and, consistent with the fundamental principle of accountability that underlies the introduction of the community charge, they must have some financial interest in the cost implications of the policies they can vote for.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will students get an increase in grant to cover the cost?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had followed the arguments earlier——

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should not be so patronising.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman from his partician loftiness is shouting from a sedentary position; he would do well to listen to the changes that were made in another place.

An Hon. Member: Just answer the question.

Mr. Ancram: I shall certainly answer the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), if his hon. Friends will allow me to do so.
At a previous stage, we had proposed that a supplement to the grant would be given to all who were eligible for grant to help them pay the largest proportion of the community charge. At that time, I made it clear that we would probably wish to supplement the grant, for those eligible for grant, by an amount of up to probably 80 per cent., which would match the general level of rebates for others on low incomes under the proposals in the Bill.
As I was saying, an argument was put forward in another place that this could be unfair to some who would be paying the charge, because the supplement would reflect the average of the community charges for Scotland and not necessarily the community charge in each area; it was also argued that there might be unfairness because some students, such as foreign students, would not get any supplement. For that reason, we moved away from the proposal to supplement the grant to the proposals in the amendment we are considering.

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman made what appeared to be an adverse comment about my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in referring to his patrician background. That seemed to come somewhat oddly from his mouth in view of his genetic inheritance, and the more so because of his Parliamentary Private Secretary who is even more patrician than he is. Having shared an office with my excellent colleague my hon. Friend the Member for East

Lothian, may I assure the Under-Secretary that he is much less a patrician? In fairness to his electoral chances, may I point out that he is much more plebeian than I am?

Mr. Ancram: I cannot comment on the last point, but I can on the earlier ones, because the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I went to school together; we were at the same public school and I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time. Not for that reason only but because he lives in the same part of the Scottish borders as I do, I must point out that on the last reckoning he owns rather more land in the Scottish borders than I do. It was with certain experience that I used the phrase advisedly. I may say also that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is not my Parliamentary Private Secretary, but the PPS of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is the old boys' network. As a commoner, if I may intervene in the aristocratic argument, am I right in believing that students in Scotland will pay 20 per cent. of the poll charge and that they will get no increase in student grant to cover that 20 per cent.? Many students in Aberdeen will be affected; indeed, the city of Aberdeen itself will be affected by the charges.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to the part of my remarks which I have been trying to complete for some time. If I may explain what the amendment will do, the hon. Gentleman will get the answer to his question.
Amendment No. 28 responds positively to many of the points of criticism made in another place. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that students should pay only a reduced charge. We envisage that the amount payable will be equivalent to the amount which would be paid by an individual receiving the maximum rebate. It is important that there should be fairness between those two. If the hon. Gentleman checks, I believe that he will find that the students themselves recognise that point.
As the House will recall, the illustrative assumptions we have made about the rebate scheme involve a maximum rebate of 80 per cent., so that everyone is called upon to pay a minimum contribution of 20 per cent. as the personal community charge. On the same basis, therefore, we would envisage prescribing that students should pay 20 per cent. of the charge. As I say, it is to keep equity between the two systems.
The original proposal was to supplement the grant to help students pay roughly the same proportion of community charge as somebody on a full rebate. We have removed the idea of supplementing grant and have effectively created an exemption of up to 80 per cent. So the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we decided to go down the route not of supplementing grant but of exempting students from a proportion of the charge. We believe that the system we are proposing, which the students themselves prefer to the system originally proposed, will meet some of the criticisms.

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudon): rose——

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to develop my points about the amendment.
The new approach envisaged in the amendment has a number of important advantages. First, for home students, it means that their financial outgoings will be substantially reduced. This will be helpful to them in budgeting, particularly during the vacation period when they will not normally have any direct income from grant. That was a weakness, perhaps, of the previous proposals.
Secondly, it means that the amount payable by each student will not depend on the difference between the charge in his area and the Scottish average, but will simply be a set proportion of the charge in that area. Again, that was a criticism levelled at the original proposals.
Thirdly, there will be important administrative simplifications. I acknowledge that our earlier proposals involving a non-means-tested addition to grant, would have involved some extra administrative burden on the Scottish Education Department and local education authorities in England and Wales administering the awards scheme for students coming to Scotland. The new approach will achieve the required result very simply.
Finally, the amendment will substantially improve the position of overseas students. It would have been difficult, if not imposible, to offer them compensation through the student awards system as was proposed for home students eligible for awards, but the amendment will mean that the amounts they are called upon to pay will be substantially reduced. The Government's new approach in this respect substantially meets the concerns which were expressed about the position of overseas students.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the scheme which he has just outlined. Will he confirm that at universities such as St. Andrews, which is normally residential, a great many students will be much better off under the community charge system than under the rating system because many who live in private accommodation outside university residences pay rates for which they get no assistance?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I know this from experience in my constituency. Students who live in accommodation where rates are payable contribute to the rates wholly or in part, depending on where they live. At the same time some students, because of parental contributions, do not receive any support through awards. Hon. Members know only too well that the hardest pressed students are those who get no award because of parental contributions but actually get no parental contribution; they have to pay full rates for their accommodation, without any assistance. So I agree with my hon. Friend that the improvements made in another place answer not only some of the criticisms but the real problems that exist under the present rating-system.

Mr. Foulkes: rose——

Mr. Ancram: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I hope he will tell me how, under his Government, or under his prospective Government's policies which he is putting forward at the election, he would seek to help students who at the moment have to pay rates without any assistance.

Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that the Minister has conceded that we will win the election. I will leave it to my hon. Friends to explain what the Labour Government will do.

I hope the Minister will not chide me for not knowing the answer to the question, but I have not been involved in the previous consideration of the Bill; as he knows only too well, I have been involved in other parliamentary business elsewhere.
Yesterday, I visited Ballochmyle hospital in my constituency and was approached by representatives of the student nurses there. They were concerned that they were not getting an increase or rather the proposed increase—for those in the nursing profession—and were worried because, as I understand it, they will not be treated like other students, and in the way that the Minister has just described. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House the rationale and reason why student nurses are not treated in the same way as other students in relation to the poll tax?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. The simple answer is that student nurses and others, such as apprentices and those on youth training schemes, are in a fundamentally different position from students. All those individuals either have earnings or are in receipt of allowances, and have access, if necessary, to the rebate scheme that is proposed in the legislation. However, students will not have access to that rebate scheme if they fall within the definition of "students" that is triggered by this amendment. It is because there is a different way of dealing with those groups that they do not fall within this amendment.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister saying that student nurses could end up paying more than 20 per cent., or more than the lowest rebated level? Does that apply to those student nurses who receive substantially less, in real terms, than some students who will have their poll tax reduced to 20 per cent.?

Mr. Ancram: For those who do not fall within the category of student, that depends on the income of the individual. I am not making any accusations, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present when we discussed the rebate scheme and illustrated the income support levels that are likely to exist. However, we may deal with that when discussing other amendments later today.
The entire principle of the Bill is to ensure that through a rebate scheme, those on low incomes will receive support. The principle behind that remains that each person should contribute something. Students fell out of that category because, quite rightly, they are dealt with less and less through the social welfare system, and more and more through educational provisions, and in other ways. For that reason, it was felt that students should be treated in a different way.
It was for that reason that we originally sought to supplement student grants. However, given the complications that were advanced about those proposals, we are now proposing a much simpler system which, I believe, is generally welcomed by universities and student bodies because it is regarded as an improvement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: It is hardly surprising that students welcome this provision because many currently pay rates, which Opposition Members wish to continue. However, what is the position for students living in halls of residence? At present, the University Grants Committee pays a substantial sum to Scottish universities for the domestic rates arising from their students. Under


these proposals, are we to take it that, because students will no longer pay rates and because the halls of residence will no longer he rated for domestic rates, there will be a windfall gain for the Scottish universities insofar as the UGC makes those grants to those Scottish universities?

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend is moving away from the territory for which I have responsibility — the administration of the community charge — into the financing of higher education. Although I may have views on that, I have no responsibility for it as a Minister. However, I have noted my hon. Friend's comments and I am sure that those who have that responsibility will also have noted his points.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I am sure that the Minister has received some advice about central institutions, such as halls of residence, on a par with the comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). Surely the Minister has some views on this matter?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course I have views on this. However, it is not for me to speak on this subject from the Dispatch Box. University finance does not fall——

Mr. Ernie Ross: rose——

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. University finance does not fall within my area of responsibility, either in terms of universities or of higher education generally. My hon. Friend the member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) is the Minister responsible for that.

Mr. Ernie Ross: We are talking about legislation that is not yet enacted. Therefore, we are discussing the possibilities of seeking to amend and improve it. However, other amendments to other legislation are running parallel with this.
The Minister's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who is responsible for universities, is introducing an entirely new body which will have a Scottish component. The Secretary of State for Scotland will have a responsibility to give advice to that new funding body from the Scottish perspective. Therefore, it is important that the Minister should address this aspect now, because clearly the Secretary of State for Education and Science will consider this debate and read the comments made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). If he listens to him, without any guidance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box, he may well adopt the rather meagre and miserly attitude taken by the hon. Member for Stirling and deny the universities the funds they desperately need.
It is important that the Minister realises that he has a say, because under the new funding proposals for universities, the Secretary of State for Scotland will have a responsibility to give guidance on the position of the Scottish universities.

Mr. Ancram: Hon. Members must appreciate that the question of funding and of what happens to the university resources that currently come from the UGC—which at the moment meet the rates on student accommodation—is a matter of university or higher education finance. Obviously, it must be considered but it is not a matter on which, from the Dispatch Box, I shall either give a projection or make a policy statement.
Quite rightly, because that is the purpose of the amendment, I am dealing with the position of students— [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West wish to intervene? He is a great mutterer from a seated position.

Mr. Douglas: I do not want to prolong this agony for the Minister, but the Scottish Office Minister responsible for education is sitting along the Bench from him. 'The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) has the responsibility, in the Scottish Office, for central institutions, including colleges of education which have halls of residence and which would receive "windfalls" on the lines that the Minister has mentioned. What is the view of the Scottish Office about those "windfalls"? Surely to goodness it has a view on that.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a situation that will not arise for another two years. It absolutely fascinates me to hear Opposition Members say that we should be taking a distinct and definitive view on university financing two years hence——

Mr. Douglas: I am not talking about university finance.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not talking about university finance. However, the purpose of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling was to talk about university financing. What fascinates me about this argument is that Opposition Members suggest that, if universities were to benefit from some sort of windfall, it should be taken from them. I am sure that the universities will note the remarks made by Opposition Members.
To sum up, this Government amendment represents a clear and positive response to the concern that has been expressed about students. It rightly maintains the principle that students should be liable for the community charge, like other adults who use local services and influence them through their votes. The amendment achieves the result that the Government have intended all along, that students should be in broadly the same position as those in receipt of the maximum rebate—by a mechanism which, I must admit, is much simpler than that which we had originally envisaged. The amendment greatly improves the position of overseas students and also that of others who would not have been eligible for assistance through grants. It removes many of the areas of concern that had arisen. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment No. 32 provides that students who are resident in premises subject to the collective community charge should not as a result be exempt from the personal community charge. They will thus be subject to individual registration and will be liable to pay the reduced amount of charge provided under amendment No. 28. They will not be liable to make collective community charge contributions to the landlord of the collective charge premises. Some anxiety was expressed in this area and I believe that the amendment has also been broadly welcomed. I commend it to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the House that both amendments Nos. 28 and 32 involve privilege.

6 pm

Mr. Maxton: I shall be brief, as I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak on the slightly more important issue of the disabled and the poor, who should be exempt from this disastrous tax.
I wish to make three points. First, we welcome the change, while recognising its limitations. For the vast majority of students at Scottish universities, colleges and other educational institutions there will be no financial change whatever. The Government made it clear that they would put a certain amount on the grant, and the amendment merely gives a legal definition to it and a basis for it which was not otherwise the case. I welcome the change for that reason. It also helps foreign students and students who are out of receipt of grant, perhaps in a fourth year, or repeating a year for which they have no grant, and I welcome it for that reason also.
Secondly, on several occasions the Minister mentioned the figure of 20 per cent., but there is nothing in the amendment or the Bill to say that. The figure shall be "prescribed", so it is not even necessarily the same amount as for security benefit.

Mr. Ancram: It will be.

Mr. Maxton: This was the opportunity that the Minister had for inserting 20 per cent. clearly and unequivocally in the Bill. The Minister keeps saying 20 per cent., but I am reliably informed that the Department of the Environment does not wish to have 20 per cent. written into the Bill, because, if by some mischance it has the opportunity, it wishes to have a much higher minimum payment than 20 per cent. Therefore, the Department ensured that no minimum percentage was written into the Bill.
Thirdly, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said that there would be a windfall for universities and colleges from this provision. What about the local authorities? It is not clear how the sums that local authorities will lose in rates on university buildings and reduced poll tax for students will be made up. In north-east Fife, St. Andrew's university is a major contributor to the rating system. Who will pay the difference there? Will the Government make supplementary grants to local authorities to take account of their loss? There are about 30,000 full-time students in Glasgow. If they were not students, they would either pay the full amount, or part of it would be paid by the Government and they would make a minimum payment. The amendment does not make it clear who will pay the supplement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman cannot have the argument both ways. He cannot argue both that students will be worse off and that local government will be worse off. Either students will pay more, or they will pay less. If they pay more the local authority will be better off, and if they pay less the local authority will be worse off. He seems to be pursuing two parallel arguments which are mutually exclusive.

Mr. Maxton: My arguments are not mutually exclusive. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman's rather small brain that he fails to grasp the point. The Government's original proposals were that most students would be paid up to 80 per cent. extra on their grant in order to pay the full poll tax to their local authority. The local authority was to receive the full sum and the students were to pay 20 per

cent. of it. Under these proposals, it is clear that students will pay 20 per cent., but it is not clear how the Government will pay the 80 per cent. which they were originally to pay through additional grant to the local authority. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that now?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: indicated assent.

Mr. Maxton: Good. I am glad about that.
I hope that the Minister will respond briefly to my three points.

Mr. Maclennan: I had hoped that the Minister would take the opportunity to explain to the Scottish public who will be affected by this changed provision in respect of liability for the personal community charge.
Clause 8 does not define those who are in full-time courses of education, which is why the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to student nurses. Nor is it clear whether other people who are in full-time courses of education, such as those on youth training schemes, might conceivably be affected by the change. When the Minister replies to the debate he may wish to make the ambit of this change clearer than hitherto.
It is clear from what the Minister said that students, however wide that category may be defined subsequently, will not be better off as a result of the change if what he said about offsetting the burden of the community charge through an adjustment in grants is the case. What has been portrayed as a concession seems to have been made solely with foreign students coming to Scottish universities in mind and with no intention to alleviate the burden on Scottish students.
In a parliamentatry answer to a question that I tabled about the incidence of the poll tax in different authority areas the Minister drew attention to the wide differences in the level of the poll tax that will exist to replace domestic rates at 1985–86 levels. In Strathclyde, for example, the community charge will be £229, whereas in Grampian, where Aberdeen university is located, it will be £157. Does the Minister expect students to take that factor into account when deciding which university to attend?
It is astonishing that foreign students should have to pay this impost. I attended university in New York, and no one there suggested that I should be made to pay a poll tax. Such reciprocity seems to be the least that a civilised country, such as Scotland, should offer visiting foreign students. Furthermore, I wonder whether what is proposed conforms to European Community policy. I wonder how many other EC countries levy poll taxes on our students who study abroad, as I expect they will do increasingly. Is the Minister suggesting that our Scottish students would do better, financially, to study abroad?

Mr. Henderson: Can the hon. Gentleman give me a good sound reason why overseas students, who are frequently well off, should not pay a contribution to local government services, of which they are beneficiaries like everyone else? In the United States, where the hon. Gentleman had the benefit of being a student, he would have paid state and local taxes if they had arisen as sales taxes or in any other form.

Mr. Maclennan: The state of New York, where I had the good fortune to study, had a sensible system of local income tax, which I commend to the hon. Member for


Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). There was never any suggestion that it should be paid for by students, and nor would there he under an alliance Government.
There are many students who are living pretty close to the bread line who have to eke out their all too exiguous grant by working during the vacations. This poll tax will be an additional charge which, no doubt, will influence the thinking of some of them as to whether it is appropriate to spin out their higher education, as they should do: whether, as the poll tax rises to take account of increases in the cost of running local government and providing services which are necessary and which Parliament has entrusted to it, they can afford to continue in full-time education. The inhibitions on going into higher education in this country under a Conservative Government are great enough, in all conscience, and it is astonishing that the Government are seeking to increase the burden.

Mr. Henderson: I shall be very brief. I want to point out that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) did not give a single reason why he felt that overseas students should be exempt from paying the community charge. That is the only point that I wish to make at this stage.

Mr. Hugh Brown: I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. It seems to me that the amendment is no concession, although for administrative reasons it is tidier and better. I suspect that the bulk of Scottish students will continue to be out of pocket to the same extent as they were under the previous arrangements, based on the 80–20 per cent. proposals. I am not trying to be clever, as the Minister knows. If he says that there will be a loss of revenue to local authorities, has he made any estimate of the loss to each affected authority? Does this mean that some compensation will have to be built into the formula for the revenue support grant for that loss of revenue?

Mr. Ernie Ross: There are approximately 7,000 full-time students in Dundee attending a college of education, a college of technology, university or a college of art. Can the Minister tell those 7,000 students that under his legislation they will not pay more than they pay at present? That is a simple question. How does the hon. Gentleman respond to the 970 student nurses in Dundee who will have to pay more, bearing in mind the miserable rise that was given to them by the Government a few weeks ago? What will he say to them?

Mr. David Lambie: I should like to take up the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). This amendment is not a concession. The majority of students in my constituency in Ayrshire will be paying 20 per cent. of the poll tax when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. At present, they pay nothing.
Recently, I visited the two major further education colleges in my area — Ayr technical college and Kilmarnock technical college. The students at those colleges were incensed that the value of their grant had been reduced by 19 per cent. since 1979 and that now they are to he hit by this poll tax charge.
The Minister said that there will be a rebate up to 80 per cent. of the poll tax. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), I do not accept that

that is the figure on which the Government will finally settle; otherwise no Government who have made up their mind on the rebate would subject themselves to the justifiable criticism that they are getting now. If the Government have fixed the rebate at 80 per cent., why do they not put it in the Bill? I am always suspicious of any Government, irrespective of party and despite what they say in the House or in Committee. At the end of the day it is what is in the legislation that applies. If the figure of 80 per cent. is not in the legislation when it leaves this House, I believe that, after the general election, the Government will take the opportunity to do what the Secretary of State for the Environment wants. Instead of the rebated element being up to 80 per cent. there will be a rebated element of up to 20 per cent. so that everyone, irrespective of their background, will be forced to pay 80 per cent. of the tax.
If the Minister is honest and sincere about this change, he should state clearly that none of the students at either Ayr technical college or Kilmarnock technical college, who currently are not paying rates, will pay either 20 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the poll tax. If he does that, I might vote for him. If not, I shall vote against him.

Mr. Foulkes: The more I sit through these discussions, the more concerned I become about the implication; of the poll tax for students, student nurses and other young people, but we are particularly dealing with students tonight.
During Education and Science Question Time a few weeks ago the Minister of State, when dealing with universities, admitted under questioning from myself and others that the student grant is not enough to cover all the costs that students must pay. When I asked how he expected students from poor families to be able to make ends meet, he said that they should find a job in their spare time. In an area such as mine, where there is 28 per cent. unemployment, that is quite impossible. It is wrong to suggest that people should moonlight in order to get themselves through college. This poll tax will add to their burden, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) knows only too well. As my hon. Friend from Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) said, where will students get this extra 20 per cent.? It is impossible for the ordinary poor family in a council house in my constituency who are already facing this additional poll tax to find this extra 20 per cent., so it will be much more difficult for the students who are struggling to get through college.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who annoys me almost to the point of hatred, is the architect of this vicious little measure and the father of this bastard, because that is what this poll tax is. He is one of the people who will benefit from it. He is one of the people who will be better off, as will the Minister and many others.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: And the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

Mr. Foulkes: Exactly. The only difference between Conservative Members and myself is that I am against this measure because I do not think that I should be better off. I can afford to pay my property tax. Conservative Members are voting for their own windfall. We are voting against getting it because we can afford to pay; but there are people who will have to pay more who cannot afford it.
The hon. Member for Stirling, that vicious little Member, the architect of this measure——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. the hon. Gentleman does not help debate by using such extravagant language.

Mr. Foulkes: Even if it is true? The hon. Member for Stirling talks about a windfall to universities. He knows damn fine that the Treasury will make sure that the universities never see any of that windfall.
The only people who will get windfalls out of this provision are, as usual under a Tory Government, the rich. In my constituency, people such as the Marquess of Ailsa, the Marquess of Bute and the Duke of Wellington are likely to benefit. Fortunately, none of them has a vote. They will benefit, but the poor in the council houses, the people I represent, and their sons and daughters, who are desperately trying to get through university to better themselves, will suffer. Those are the people who will make sure that the Tories are not re-elected and that this provision is not enacted.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is a past master of black propaganda and we have heard it all again tonight. His remarks do not deserve a reply.
I am aware that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) likes to rely on reliable sources for his information. However, what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the 20 per cent.——

Mr. Lambie: That is why I go to the colleges.

Mr. Ancram: That may well be, but with regard to what he had to say about the 20 per cent. and 80 per cent., I do not believe that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is a reliable source. I do not know from what reliable source the hon. Member for Cathcart received his information, but I believe that he should go out and find another source.
Right from the start of the debates we have had on the rebate scheme I have made it clear that the likely figure —I have used that word over and over again—was a 20 per cent. minimum requirement.

Mr. Lambie: Put that figure in the Bill.

Mr. Ancram: I have explained on many occasions, but I am prepared to do so again, that the reason why that figure is not in the legislation is that we are basing the rebate scheme on the housing benefit scheme that will be introduced in April next year. We believe that it does not make sense to have two different schemes—that would cause all sorts of confusion in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South—but to have two schemes that are, as far as possible, the same as each other.
In all the illustrations that have been created in draft, the figure for the housing benefit regulation has been set at 20 per cent. It is likely to be 20 per cent., but we have to await those regulations to discover that figure. It is for that reason that the legislation we are discussing does not contain the figure of 20 per cent. I suspect that if that 20 per cent. figure had been included, Opposition Members, who find an argument against anything, would have said that that was like writing the figure into tablets of stone. No doubt they would have argued that such a percentage figure should be left to statutory instruments or

regulations so that it could be altered in the light of changing circumstances. I believe that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South is doing himself a disservice by relying too much on his hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. I believe that he has been misled.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) asked whether students will be better off. I must say that those students who pay nothing at the moment towards local government, although they receive the benefit of local government services, will obviously have to pay for the first time. By definition they will not be better off. I believe that there are strong arguments for claiming that those who benefit from services should be prepared to contribute to them. I see no reason for saying that those who are not students, but possibly on low incomes, should be prepared to pay 20 per cent., but that students should be exempt. I see no justification for that, and I suspect that the public would agree with me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) has said that students who find themselves paying rates with no support may find that they are better off as a result of this legislation. Their financial standing will depend precisely on the contribution that they make to local government and the support that they receive.

Mr. Henderson: At the moment, does not the University Grants Committee pay universities substantial sums, which they then pay in rates to local authorities? That sum amounts to 10 per cent. of the moneys made available by the Government to support the university system. The Opposition talk about cuts in funding for universities, but here is a wonderful way of obtaining more funds for universities by reducing the demands that local authorities make upon them in rates.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, because it is also valid regarding future provisions for non-domestic rates.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) kept on referring to the fact that the poll tax will rise. The only reason why the poll tax will rise — [HON. MEMBERS: "Poll tax!"]—is if high-spending local authorities decide to continue to increase their expenditure. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) also made that prediction. If that is his prediction for Labour authorities in Scotland, it is about time that Scottish ratepayers understood that. We believe that once the community charge is in place — [HON. MEMBERS: "Poll tax."]—I was quoting the words used by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
Once the community charge is in place, I believe that many authorities, which at the moment see nothing wrong in increasing expenditure when they know that only a minority of their electorates must pay, will think twice before they impose the type of increases predicted by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) questioned whether the concession that I have announced is a true concession. Obviously, it is a concession for those who, until this amendment was made, were to pay the full community charge — those who are not eligible for grant, foreign students, and so on. I believe that those groups will view the amendment as a concession. It is a further concession that I am sure people in the hon. Gentleman's area will appreciate because the original proposal that we made was that the support given through


the grant system would attach to a figure, likely to be 80 per cent. of the average poll—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".] — the average community charge in Scotland. At that time it was pointed out, quite rightly, that that proposal would impose heavier liabilities on those who live in high-community charge areas as opposed to those who live in low-community charge areas——

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to ensure that, when recording this debate, Hansard makes it clear that, for the first time, the Minister has at last admitted that we are debating a poll tax?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ancram.

Mr. Ancram: We had a long debate in Committee on the question of poll tax. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Garscadden looks so tired, but it is his hon. Friends and allies who are raising this question. In Committee we discussed the definition of poll tax and agreed that a poll tax was a charge per head. At that stage it was made clear that, in terms of that definition, this community charge could fit the definition of a poll tax. We never made any secret about that. However, it was emphasised in Committee, and I wish to repeat, that the Opposition want to attach the term "poll tax" to this measure not because it is a charge per head, but because it creates a totally dishonest impression that this is a tax on the right to vote. That is the only reason why the Opposition get so excited —I appreciate that it is the end of term — about the question of a poll tax.
If I may return to the question raised by the hon. Member for Provan I believe that the concession that I have announced will be a concession even in the high-community charge areas.
The hon. Member for Cathcart questioned the implications of this measure on local government finance. The requirement that students should pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge will mean that the community charge will be less than it would otherwise have been. In that sense it resembles the various rating reliefs that are presently taken into account in the distribution of rate support grant. Similarly, under the proposed future arrangements for revenue support grant it will be possible to take account of the effect of the concession for students. The mechanism must be the subject of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, I believe that the point made by the hon. Member for Cathcart will be met.
With regard to the definition of "students", it is the Government's intention that those paying the reduced community charge should be students undertaking full-time courses of education. The definition will be in line with that applied by the Department of Health and Social Security for the purpose of determining students' access to benefits. The mechanism of the reduced charge applies instead of the possibility of access to rebate.
The arrangements will be specified in regulations after consultation with local authorities and education interests. Within the provisions of this legislation we are making sure that there is protection for students. If they do not fall within the category of students, they will fall in the category within which rebates can be applied where justified.
I believe that this amendment is a good, sound concession. I am surprised that it has received such a dusty

response from the Opposition. I believe that those who have always pretended at least to have the interests of students at heart will welcome it, and I ask the House to do so.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 30 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 7, line 42, at end insert—
(aa) persons who are severely mentally handicapped within the meaning of subsection (8) below;".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out 'severely'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following : Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, at end insert 'and registered disabled persons'.

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—
(8) In subsection (7)(aa) above, "persons who are severely mentally handicapped" has the following meaning, that is to say, persons suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or such other meaning as may, in substitution, be prescribed.

Amendment (a) thereto, leave out from 'above' to end and insert—

`(i) All registered disabled people;
(ii) All students in full-time education;

Amendment (b) thereto, leave out 'severely'.

Amendment (c) thereto, leave out 'severe'.

Mr. Dewar: I have no complaint about the amount of time that we took on the earlier matters. They were important. Normally, we would have taken a great deal more time over them. I accuse no one of delaying progress. I merely make the point that the guillotine motion has left us in the uncomfortable position in which there are some important matters concerning definitions in connection with the concession to the handicapped. It is unfortunate that they will be squeezed into a few minutes of debate. I hope that the Minister has a little bit of conscience about that.
The issue is the deep concern that has been expressed to almost every hon. Member—certainly to those on the Opposition side — by constituents and organisations dealing with those who are handicapped or disabled, about the impact of the poll tax on them. Let me make it perfectly clear that we will be invited to agree concessions shortly. I welcome such concessions, however small they are. They are a step in the right direction and they represent continuous pressure by my hon. Friends and my colleagues in another place. I take ten seconds warmly to thank Lord Ross of Marnock, Lord Morton of Shuna, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and their colleagues who put up a splendid, spirited fight in the other place. We have got a concession.
Our concern and the point of the amendments is whether the concession is wide enough and whether, responsibly and sensibly, it could be widened and made even more generous. Very shortly, the exemption from the poll is for some persons who are severely mentally handicapped within the meaning of a definition that appears in the Bill. The definition is:


persons suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or such other meaning as may, in substitution, be prescribed.
The simple effect of the first amendment is to take out the word "severely". That will leave "mentally handicapped" as the criterion. It will leave the definition still referring to a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind, but makes it a little more flexible by making it clear that there must be an impairment of intelligence and social functioning but not necessarily a severe impairment, as the Government are demanding.
There are other amendments on which I shall spend no time at all. We must stick to the essentials. The amendments that take out the word "severe" seem to be reasonable and do something significant and useful. It is not a matter of professional ingratitude from Opposition Benches when I suggest that some widening would be welcomed in almost every quarter of the community. I hope that the Minister will seriously address the problem.
The other amendment to which I draw attention is that which would add an important addition, I admit, but one that I hope the Minister will view sympathetically. It is a separate amendment, so they do not stand or fall together. It is suggested not only that we should try to help those who suffer from a mental handicap, but that we should also try to include those who are registered disabled. I accept that that would greatly increase the scope of the concession, but it seems to be a reasonable request.
If we leave "severe" as a criterion of mental handicap, how many people in Scotland will benefit from the concession? I fear that it will be few indeed. Can the Minister lay to rest the genuine fear that the criterion "state of arrested or incomplete development" means that the concession will apply only to those who have been handicapped from birth by some happening at or before birth? There are those who, through illness or tragedy at a later stage, may have a severe handicap. It has been suggested — I put it no higher — that they may be excluded. We should put that fear to one side if it is unjustified. Will the Minister also say a word or two about who decides? Clearly, all the definitions are subjective. The matter comes at a late stage. It is important. It may be the registration officer. It may ultimately be decided in the courts. It is important to know what the machinery is.
The Minister may say that, after all, to remove "severe" or "severely" will widen the scope and lead to a rather ill-defined concession. All such judgments are subjective. We should leave the person who has to use his judgment subjectively in the public interest, with room for compassion and room to look, in a fairly generous way, at cases that are brought to his attention.
I do not think that I need to labour the point about the concession for the disabled. I am sure that the Minister, in his personal capacity at least, will have some sympathy with the fact that many disabled people do not have an easy financial time. All right, they will get a concession and may have to pay only 20 per cent. of the poll tax, but even that will be something of a burden. I remind the Minister —he is aware of it— that, at the moment, under the rating system there is a concession that is at least of some use to them. They get a rating concession on that part of their house that is adapted for the special needs of the

disabled. It seems that for many of them there should be some exemption that takes them out of even the 20 per cent. residue that I suspect may affect many of them.
From my own constituency, I know that the handicapped are hard-pressed. I know that they would appreciate a widening of the concession. I commend the amendments to the Minister. I know that he will want to be helpful, as I hope every hon. Member would. I believe that removing severe criteria from the test that is to be applied by whomever decides who among the mentally handicapped will qualify for the exemption would he a sensible loosening of an over-tight definition. Perhaps it will allow many deserving cases to be included. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there will be widespread disappointment if he is not prepared to look at the disabled and include them in the proposed scheme.

Mr. Ancram: It may be helpful if I set out the Government's position in relation to the amendment passed in another place and that tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). First, in responding to the amendments to the two amendments that we are considering, which exempt the severely handicapped from the personal community charge, I should make clear the Government's basic approach to exemptions from personal community charge liability.
To be effective in creating accountability, the personal community charge must, as far as possible, be payable by the whole adult population. In this respect, the new system will differ crucially from the domestic rating system, in which the tax base covers less than half the population and in which a complex pattern of reliefs and exemptions has built up over a period. We do not propose to reproduce that pattern of exemptions and reliefs. However, we have proposed an exemption for the severely mentally handicapped on the grounds that people in that category cannot be expected to understand the concept of local authority accountability, and therefore should be excluded from liability.
After consideration of that policy in the other place, we announced our intention also to exclude people resident in nursing homes and residential care homes, such as people resident in hospitals and prisoners in custody, on the grounds that they too, in effect, are removed from the local democratic process. We are creating a consistent position within the Bill that is welcomed by those affected by it.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many severely mentally handicapped people will be affected by the exclusion. Between 5,000 and 6,000 people would fall within the category of severely mentally handicapped.
The amendments relating to severe mental handicap were brought forward by the Government in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee in the other place, that we would look very carefully at the question whether mentally handicapped persons living in the community should be exempted from the personal community charge. This question had indeed been raised during the passage of the Bill, in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). Arguments were put forward that the severely mentally handicapped should be exempt on the grounds that such persons do not have the mental capacity to take part in the local democratic process.
That is the principle that we have accepted in the amendment, but the amendments also provide—this is


the point raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden—that the definition of what constitutes "handicapped" may be revised by subordinate legislation. This provision draws on section 1(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, but we think that it would be prudent to provide for the subsequent amendment of the definition of severe mental handicap to take account of any suggestions that are put to us by interested professional bodies in the course of consultation on the implementation of the provision, and of possible future changes in the clinical assessment of such conditions.
This, as the hon. Member for Garscadden realises, is a difficult area. It is important to have a definitional benchmark against which we can operate the exemption. The provision within the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 allowed for that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two possible areas about which it might be advisable to consult further. However, we have built in this flexible provision, which allows us to alter the definition should circumstances require that. But that is different from what the amendments propose. They would broaden the scope of exemptions for the mentally handicapped, by providing that all of them, and not only the severely mentally handicapped, shall be exempt. I cannot accept that, for two reasons. First, many handicapped people play an active part in the life of their communities, and are quite capable of appreciating the issues of local authority accountability.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman would say that, would he not?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman talked to some people who were not severely mentally handicapped he would find that the idea that they are not capable of taking part in the local democratic process, and should therefore be excluded, would be regarded by them as insulting. The hon. Gentleman should watch what he says.

Mr. Home Robertson: I said what I said because the Minister is illustrating the intentions underlying the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, the legislation will make a number of people better off. I, my hon. Friend and the Minister will be better off. Someone will have to pay more, and the Minister will happily inflict this additional tax burden on handicapped and mentally handicapped people. He is proud of that, and it makes me sick.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman supports a rating system under which many mentally handicapped people pay rates——

Mr. Home Robertson: Go to hell.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) must withdraw that remark immediately.

Mr. Home Robertson: I withdraw it, but I think that the Minister knows what I mean.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has not thought before speaking, because the system that he supports equally requires these categories of people to pay contributions to local government finance through the rates. The Government's policy is, as far as possible, to

treat mentally handicapped people as ordinary members of society, and an exemption of the scope proposed by the hon. Member for Garscadden goes too far.

Mr. Douglas: rose——

Mr. Ancram: Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not agree with the exemptions that we are proposing. He must make up his mind. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be glad to give way.

Mr. Douglas: I shall wait until I make my own speech.

Mr. Ancram: Secondly, the omission of the word "severely" from the description of those to be exempted raises potential difficulties of definition that would represent a considerable administrative burden for the personal community charge system. For that reason also, I cannot accept the amendments. To the hon. Member for Garscadden, I say that the flexibility is built in deliberately.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked how the machinery works, and it is right to examine how the registration officer will handle the identification of those who qualify for exemption on the grounds that they are severely mentally handicapped. We envisage that the registration officer will in most cases rely on a simple certificate from an appropriate doctor that the individual in question meets the criteria. The steps in the process will be simple and straightforward. Where a responsible person has indicated on a canvass form or in response to other inquiries made by the registration officer that someone resident at the address in question is severely mentally handicapped, the registration officer will follow up the matter by asking the responsible person for a certificate by an appropriate doctor and its return to the registration officer.
We shall in due course be consulting the professional bodies involved in this process, and in the light of those consultations will prepare guidance for registration officers on the handling of these cases.

Mr. Douglas: This is absolutely nauseating.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman obviously believes that the procedure for exempting the mentally handicapped is nauseating. That is a depressing view, which will be noted by those organisations that have to deal with the problems of the mentally handicapped. I am confident that the procedure that I have explained will ensure that all, or virtually all, cases of exemption on the grounds of severe mental handicap are handled swiftly and with the minimum of fuss.
The hon. Member for Garscadden also moved amendments that would exempt all registered disabled people. That, too, would go much too wide: many registered disabled people hold down responsible jobs and play a full part in society. There is no possible justification for a blanket exemption of this kind. Lord Glenarthur, speaking in another place, recognised that many people next year would, for the first time, be making a contribution towards their rates, and thereafter to the community charge. He accepted that that was one factor that could affect the setting of the income support levels, and said that, in setting income support levels, we shall take into account the impact of this on the most vulnerable groups.
The Government plan to make their intentions clear reasonably soon, at the same time as issuing the draft


housing benefit regulations to local authorities. It would obviously be wrong of me to pre-empt those announcements but I am sure that Opposition Members will agree that Lord Glenarthur's remarks show a clear commitment to assist the most vulnerable groups, including the disabled; so I hope that the House will accept that the Government are aware of the sort of problems that the hon. Member for Garscadden has raised. Thus, while I cannot accept the amendments moved by the hon. Gentleman, I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Mr. Douglas: As many hon. Members know, I must declare a personal interest in these matters. I resent the strictures that the Minister tried to place on me in relation to what might be called severely mentally handicapped people. Under the system that he has outlined, for the first time, people will be asked to say, through a registration mechanism, that their child, husband or wife is severely mentally handicapped in a way which entirely lacks privacy, secrecy or confidentiality.

Mr. Ancram: That is not so.

Mr. Douglas: The Government said nothing about such secrecy. Now, the Minister says that it exists. The task will be that of the registration officer.

Mr. Ancram: rose——

Mr. Douglas: I shall not give way.
The Minister did not answer the question about how many more people would get through the narrow gateway if the deletion were accepted. How many more people would be encompassed by the Bill if the deletion were made—10,000 or 20,000? The Minister should make no mistake: when the Labour Government come to power we shall have no truck with this. This is a poll tax—a head tax. We do not resent the register, but we should reject any system that identifies for taxation purposes people who are severely mentally handicapped. What a nauseating system.
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) played his part in this matter above all others by voting against our amendments on the Floor of the House. I make no apologies for being emotional about this issue. Physically and mentally handicapped people have enough to put up with in their households without having to fill in damn forms saying that their husbands or wives are severely mentally handicapped. This is a nauseating provision, and Conservative Members should be ashamed of themselves for introducing it.

Mr. Henderson: I understand the passion of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on this matter, but when he is speaking as a Member of Parliament he should not allow his passion to cloud his judgment of the facts. My hon. Friend the Minister sought to intervene to make those facts clear to him. [Interruption.] I want to be brief so that Opposition Members can speak in the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Foulkes: Sit down.

Mr. Henderson: The amendments about which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West spoke in earlier debates in the House cover a whole raft of possible exemptions. I supported the Minister throughout on the idea that one

should resist the sweeping amendments that the Opposition seek to introduce in all sorts of situations. I am grateful to the Minister for recalling that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and I raised this matter on Third Reading before the Bill went to the Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for taking fully on board what we said at that time — that we hoped that the Government would treat mentally handicapped people as a specific category of exemption in the Bill.
I am not legally equipped to say whether the definition is right or wrong, but I am sure that the opportunity given by the clause to change the definition by prescription will in practice be inadequate. I am sure that the amendment strikes the right kind of balance. I am grateful to the Government for carrying through this sensible precaution. On a less emotional occasion, that move would be welcomed by the whole House. It is unfortunate that the Labour party is showing a rattled performance before we even start the election. I shudder to think what it will be like before the end of it.

Mr. Maclennan: No humane person, in the House or outside, could believe that the severely handicapped should be required to make a contribution to local taxation. It is astonishing that the Government, in their desire to bring forward a tax that is universal in its application, did not take that into account when deciding that we should debate this provision at this late stage. The principle that should be applied to the basis of the exemption is not that enunciated by the Minister, that there must be some test of the ability to take part in the democratic process by those who are subjected to local taxation. The proper test, and the one that would have exempted severely mentally handicapped and, indeed, almost all mentally handicapped people from paying this tax, is the ability to pay.
The Government are asking for the introduction of procedures like those that operated in Nazi Germany. It is wrong to ask people to make judgments about whether other people are able to participate in the democratic process. It is a nauseating way to achieve an end that ought to have been achieved by the simple test of the ability to pay, which is inherent in a local income tax.

Mr. Hugh Brown: I am sorry that we have only a few minutes to discuss what is obviously a subject that deserves a full debate. Hasty legislation is never good legislation, and this Lords amendment is an example of that. Our amendments highlight the practical difficulties that will face the administrators of this system. I can only guess at the reasons for the Lords amendment. Was it panic? In a mood of slight rebellion, did the Lords have to be bought off? Were their consciences bothering them because they would benefit from the Bill and needed to give some public appearance of caring?
Where did the words in the amendment come from? Who thought them up? There must be a precedent somewhere, although I know that the Minister will not have time to tell me where it is. How on earth will a local authority official administer this provision? As the Minister knows, I had bother in the Committee. If I were a Minister, I would not accept this Lords amendment. It is a phoney amendment and injects a new principle into a concession that has been given for some kind of disability.
What is the difference between mental disability and physical disability? Both are a loss of facility to enjoy life.


A severely mentally handicapped person should not, presumably, need a medical test. If a claim is to be made, someone else should he appointed to act for such people. The idea that there should be a curator bonis or some sort of examination is abhorrent to our whole system, and it follows from that that perhaps our amendments are also illogical. Does the Minister really believe that a medical certificate from a general practitioner will be acceptable? If he does, he must be joking. Housing authority walls are papered with thousands of medical certificates and we all know that they do not mean a damned thing.
This is the last speech that I shall make in the House, and I ask hon. Members to be practical. This system will be an administrator's nightmare, because of some of the personal reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I always understood that there was a strong degree of severe mental handicap among our noble families and, indeed, in the royal family. I do not know whether that was why the Lords passed the amendment. If we are elected, this legislation will be abolished. If we do not return to government, at least the Minister has the power to make regulations to try to improve this ridiculous attempt to present a caring image.

Mr. Foulkes: In what he said, the Minister gave clear and categorical proof that a poll tax is proposed. If we are talking about services that each person received, obviously, handicapped people of all kinds would participate and benefit from those services. The Minister said that for some reason a mentally handicapped person is unable to participate in the domocratic process. By saying that he immediately, clearly and categorically linked the payment of a poll tax, pseudonymously called a community charge, to the right to vote. Thankfully, and once and for all, he has shown the House that we are talking about a poll tax. Therefore, we ought to have an amendment making it clear in all the legislation that it is a poll tax.
The phrase "community charge" is a kind of euphemism thought up by the civil servants to make the measure sound reasonably attractive, sensible and painless. In reality it is a poll tax linked to voting, and is meant to discourage disabled people from voting. It is meant to give something of an electoral advantage to the Conservatives and that is one of the principal reasons for their introducing it. We know that only too well.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that nothing that I said today was new. I have said it before and I shall say it again.

Mr. Foulkes: It is certainly new to me. If the Minister did not call it a poll tax, he has given clear proof that that is what it is.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 227.

Division No. 165]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Beith, A. J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bell, Stuart


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bermingham, Gerald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Boyes, Roland





Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm
McNamara, Kevin


Buchan, Norman
McTaggart, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cartwright, John
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Meacher, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Michie, William


Conlan, Bernard
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Nellist, David


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dubs, Alfred
Parry, Robert


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Pike, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Forrester, John
Prescott, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Radice, Giles


Freud, Clement
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, W. E.
Robertson, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Gould, Bryan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sheerman, Barry


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Haynes, Frank
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hoyle, Douglas
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Janner, Hon Greville
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Straw, Jack


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Matthew


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lambie, David
Wareing, Robert


Lamond, James
Wilson, Gordon


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Litherland, Robert



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. George Foulkes and Mr. Dick Douglas.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey



Loyden, Edward



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruinvels, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Budgen, Nick


Ancram, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Ashby, David
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Best, Keith
Cash, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sydney


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Conway, Derek


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Coombs, Simon


Bright, Graham
Cope, John


Brinton, Tim
Corrie, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Couchman, James


Browne, John
Cranborne, Viscount






Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lord, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Dicks, Terry
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Durant, Tony
Maclean, David John


Emery, Sir Peter
Madel, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Major, John


Fallon, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Farr, Sir John
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marlow, Antony


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Sir Carol


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forth, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mellor, David


Franks, Cecil
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Galley, Roy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Grant, Sir Anthony
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gregory, Conal
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Harris, David
Mudd, David


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neubert, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Newton, Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Henderson, Barry
Norris, Steven


Hickmet, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hirst, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ottaway, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Holt, Richard
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Irving, Charles
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pollock, Alexander


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Portillo, Michael


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Powell, William (Corby)


Knowles, Michael
Powley, John


Knox, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Price, Sir David


Lang, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Latham, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lightbown, David
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lilley, Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion





Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rowe, Andrew
Thornton, Malcolm


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sayeed, Jonathan
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Silvester, Fred
Walters, Dennis


Sims, Roger
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Watts, John


Spencer, Derek
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Whitfield, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Raymond


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Gerald Malone and Mr. Francis Maude.


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 31 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills) and the Order [12 May], and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Consumer Protection Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[MR. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair]

Clause 4, as amended in the Standing Committee, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

APPLICATION OF PART I TO CROWN

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 37, after 'tort', insert `or in reparation'.
The amendment adapts clause 9(2) for Scotland. The clause refers to the Crown's liability in tort under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. However, the word "tort" is an English legal term of art. The 1947 Act defines it for Scotland as
any wrongful or negligent act or omission giving rise to liability in reparation".
The amendment reflects the terms of this definition by adding a reference to the Crown's liability in reparation under the 1947 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

THE GENERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENT

Mr., Alan Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'any person' and insert
`the British Standards Institution or the European Committee for Standadisation'.
This amendment is purely exploratory. The Minister and I have had an exchange of correspondence on this matter. I thought that it would be useful for it to be written into the Official Report.

Mr. Howard: The amendment attempts to restrict those standards of safety which will be considered in deciding whether consumer goods fail to comply with the general safety requirement to standards approved by either the British Standards Institution or the European Committee for Standardisation. The Opposition fear that some traders might attempt to write their own standards of safety to ensure that their goods comply with the general safety requirement. Those fears are groundless.
The purpose of clause 10(2) is to ensure that all the circumstances are considered when deciding whether consumer goods fail to comply with the general safety requirement. Along with all the qualifications in the preceding subsection (1)(a), which concern the manner in which goods were marketed or used and in any instructions or warnings given with the goods, and in the subsequent subsection (1)(c) concerning the existence of any means by which it would have been reasonable for the goods to have been made safer, we also have to consider any standards of safety published by any person. Consideration of those standards will include the question whether the particular standard of safety which applies to the goods is suitable. If the published standard does not

reach the level of safety which in all other circumstances is necessary, compliance with that standard will not necessarily be enough to outweigh consideration of these other circumstances.
There is a specific reference in subsection (3)(b)(ii) to "approved" standards of safety. These standards are more than likely to be British standards or, possibly, European standards, or may be suitable safety standards from any part of the world. But, for the purposes of clause 10(3), compliance with an approved safety standard will ensure that goods comply with the general safety requirement in relation to matters covered by that standard. No other fact then needs to be taken into account. Compliance with that approved standard will be sufficient.
For the purposes of clause 10(2), where all the circumstances are to be taken into account, any standard of safety will be taken into account, although, as I have just said, only if the level of safety provided by those standards is sufficiently high. There is, therefore, a distinct difference between the role of safety standards for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3). The amendment would seek to limit the generality of subsection (2) and, as I have sought to explain, compliance with approved standards of safety relates to subsection (3). I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) will see that there is no need for his amendment and will withdraw it.

Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 7, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).
Various organisations have expressed concern that, although we are establishing standards of safely of products in our country, we waive any such requirement for goods to be exported. Concern has been expressed by various lobbies that that would mean that many Third-world countries will sell products that would be regarded as substandard and unacceptable in this country. I should like the Minister to place his defence on record.

Mr. Howard: I remind the Committee of the genesis of this provision, which was in the White Paper, "The Safety of Goods", which was published in July 1984. In that White Paper the Government proposed that the general safety requirement would not apply to goods intended for export. It was explained at that time that a distinction had to be drawn between regulation-making powers and a general requirement such as the general safety requirement. While with a regulation-making power each case could be considered on its merits, that is not possible for a general requirement of this kind. The White Paper therefore concluded that it would be preferable, on balance, for the general safety requirement not to apply to goods for export. In these cases, it would be preferable to allow manufacturers flexibility to meet the safety requirements of the overseas market concerned. For example, an electric hair drier manufactured for use in a country which operated on a 110 volt electricity supply and used a two-pin unearthed plug might very well comply with the safety regulations of that country. It would clearly be unsafe here. If the amendment were passed, a United Kingdom manufacturer would be unable to make such a drier.
Moreover, I think that it is quite right to argue that other countries should have the right to set different safety standards from our own. Safety standards in any country tend to increase with its wealth. It is for the Government of the country concerned to decide what is acceptable, not for us. It has been suggested that our approach is in some way inconsistent with the White Paper "Standards, Quality and International Competitiveness". That could hardly be further from the truth. A crucial part of international competitiveness for our manufacturers is to allow them flexibility to compete with their foreign competitors. That will not be achieved if we impose standards upon them which might be quite irrelevant for foreign markets.
Therefore, it would be inappropriate to apply such a general requirement for goods intended for different export markets. We should allow manufacturers the flexibility to compete in foreign markets where the safety standards are properly set by the foreign Governments. For those reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

SUSPENSION NOTICES

Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 13, line 12, leave out 'that person' and insert 'any such person'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 35 in clause 34, page 30, line 8, leave out `and'.
No. 36, in page 30, line 10, at end insert
`; and
(c) it is shown that the officer did not have reasonable grounds for exercising the power'.

Mr. Williams: The Minister will appreciate that amendment No. 48 is purely exploratory, to give him a chance to put in the Official Report certain exchanges that we have had, to which other people should have access.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 have been tabled because of the concern of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. The Minister will be well aware that the compensation arrangements in the Bill are so wide that the authorities feel that they will constitute a disincentive to enforcement. They have suggested legitimate amendments to try to establish that the liability for compensation should lie where an enforcement authority has acted improperly. It seems to me that this is a fair and legitimate narrowing of the provisions. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the amendment.

Mr. Howard: The circumstances in which local authorities should he liable to pay compensation have been much debated, both on the present Bill in another place and on its predecessor, the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, for which we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory). The

present Bill does nothing more than consolidate the provisions of that earlier Act. In the light of their history, it is useful to recall why the provisions are in their present form, since they represent the outcome of considerable earlier debate and a change in the provisions in favour of enforcement authorities.
The new powers of suspension and forfeiture were suggested in the White Paper, "The Safety of Goods", published in 1984. That suggested that, because of the sweeping nature of these powers, compensation should be payable to traders wherever there was no conviction under the safety legislation. Compensation would not be paid when there was a conviction.
During the passage of the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, it was suggested that such a compensation provision did not sufficiently reflect the practical difficulties that trading standards officers might face. We listened to those representations, with the result that the circumstances in which compensation would not be paid were substantially widened. Those new circumstances were enacted in the earlier Act and they have been consolidated in the present Bill.
It would be wrong to suggest that compensation will almost always be paid; that is simply not the case. Two conditions must be satisfied. They are that the goods have not contravened any safety provision—that is, that the goods are safe—and that the exercise of the relevant power of seizure is not attributable to any neglect or default by the person seeking compensation. The second condition is very important. It includes not just specific failures to meet obligations under safety legislation, but any act or omission which, in the circumstances, is blameworthy. It could include, for example, an unreasonable unwillingness to provide an enforcement officer with information about or access to the goods. In the light of this, I suggest that the circumstances in which compensation will be paid are relatively narrow.
The amendments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, although expressed differently from the amendments to clauses 14 and 34, in practice would have a similar effect. The important question is what should happen in those unfortunate circumstances where goods are seized and nobody is to blame—the goods are safe; the trader has acted reasonably; and so has the enforcement officer. Such circumstances could arise where the enforcement officer relied quite reasonably on information supplied by a third party.
The effect of both amendments is that, in those circumstances, the trader should bear the loss. The Bill, as it stands, provides that the enforcement authority should bear the loss, and that is quite right. It is surely wrong that in providing powers for enforcement authorities to halt the supply of unsafe goods, we should do so at the expense of the innocent trader. We are simply not prepared to create a new burden of this kind on business.
Similar provisions concerning suspension of the supply of goods were enacted in the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, which has been in force for eight months. It would appear that not one practical example is available to the right hon. Gentleman of a case where a local authority has been inhibited from taking action because of its concern over compensation. Yet, as is well known, the powers of suspension have been used.
We have moved from the position in the White Paper, but we do not believe that it could ever be right not to compensate the innocent trader. There does not seem to


be any evidence of a practical problem here. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Williams: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. While I can see the substance of many of his arguments, it remains that there may be a serious impediment to the import of modern, highly technical products, particularly new products.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I press my hon. and learned Friend a little further on this matter. He was well briefed in connection with my Bill, the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Bill, as it then was. I put great pressure on the fact that local authorities, if they wished, would be empowered to take action against goods that they considered to be within the remit. My hon. and learned Friend challenged the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) to produce evidence. The cases are far too numerous to bring to the attention of the Committee this evening. Many people, adults as well as children, will suffer this year and have suffered hitherto, not only because of the restrictions in the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, but if this Bill goes on to the statute book in its present form.
The budgets of local authorities are limited and there are limitations in the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act. Regulation 5(1) states that it shall be the duty of each weights and measures authority to enforce— these are the three key words—"within its area" the provision of the safety regulations.
If a product is considered to fall within the limits of this Bill my hon. and learned Friend has suggested that the goods must be found and tested in the local authority's area. If they are found and tested in another area, that does not comply with the consolidated legislation being proposed to the Committee. That is a serious defect and loophole in the legislation which will be pursued.
I invite the Minister to answer the substantive criticism about the amount of insurance that local authorities will need to take out, because trading standards departments Would have to put forward a sizeable amount of money. I feel that the Minister is unduly favouring manufacturers, particularly those who promote look-alikes. We are not talking about the good and bona fide products which have been tested properly; the Minister is championing the shoddy, poor products, particularly those from the far east and the Third world, which is not honourable.

Mr. Williams: I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). Two thirds of the toys sold in Britain are imported and there is a vast influx at a time such as Christmas. As we have to make progress, for reasons that everyone well understands. As it is not our wish to delay the Bill in the limited circumstances available to us this evening, although the Minister has it wrong, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

DEFENCES

Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 21, line 47, at end insert

'and it shall be a defence, if the misleading indication is given in a printed catalogue, circular or price list, for that person to show that he informed the consumer in writing of the manner in which the indication was misleading before the consumer became legally bound to purchase the goods, service, accommodation or facility in respect of which the misleading indication has been made.'.
The Minister and I have had discussions within the past few days on the Bill's impact on mail order traders. He said that he was willing to give certain guarantees rather than to amend the legislation, and, as we are compacting the Bill's proceedings, it is proper that any such undertakings that he is willing to give should be clearly stated. Therefore, the amendment is intended not to be pressed, but to be a vehicle for him to state to the Committee what he has already stated to me.

Mr. Howard: I do not consider it appropriate to include a defence of the kind contemplated in the amendment in the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, the amendment is directed at special difficulties which might be faced by mail order traders. That seems to me a relatively narrow and detailed matter. The provisions of the Bill itself are meant to be of general application. The Bill already makes provision for codes of practice and for regulations, which are the proper means to deal with such matters of detail.
The proposed defence also goes much wider than can be justified. It could put consumers who make purchases through mail order catalogues in a rather worse position than those who buy goods in shops. For example, where goods in a shop are marked with one price but the customer is asked to pay a higher price at the checkout till, the trader has committed an offence under both the existing law and the Bill, even though the customer can simply decide to leave the goods at the till. The proposed defence would allow a mail order trader in similar circumstances to avoid committing an offence by sending a revised price indication to the customer with the goods, even though the consumer would be required to go to the effort of posting the goods back if he did not want them at the new price. That does not seem to me to be an acceptable outcome.
If genuine mistakes are made, the mail order trader will, as will any other trader, be able to make use of the due diligence defence in clause 39. However, I accept that mail order traders may face particular difficulties with the requirement in clause 20(2) to take all reasonable steps to ensure that consumers do not rely on a price indication which becomes misleading after it has been given. Therefore, my Department is considering with representatives of mail order traders what would be an appropriate definition of "reasonable steps" in those circumstances and I hope that it will be possible to reach an agreed solution. But I am confident that any solution can, and should, be reflected in the code of practice, or, if necessary, regulations.
I hope that with that explanation and assurance the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

CODE OF PRACTICE

Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 22, line 49, at end insert—
'(1A) A contravention of a code of practice approved under this section shall not of itself give rise to any criminal or civil liability, but in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 20(1) or (2) above—

(a) any contravention by that person of such a code may be relied on in relation to any matter for the purpose of establishing that that person committed the offence or of negativing any defence; and
(b) compliance by that person with such a code may be relied on in relation to any matter for the purpose of showing that the commission of the offence by that person has not been established or that that person has a defence.'

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 15.

Mr. Howard: As it stands, clause 25 makes provision for the Secretary of State to approve codes of practice for the purpose of giving traders practical guidance on the requirements of this part of the Bill and promoting desirable practice in the giving of price indications. It also provides for the approval of such codes to be subject to parliamentary procedures. However, as a result of amendments made in another place, it does not at present provide for an approved code to have any legal effect.
As introduced in another place, the Bill provided that compliance with the code should provide a complete defence to a charge of giving a misleading price indication. There were a number of reasons for proposing such an arrangement.
Clause 20 creates a wide general offence of giving a misleading price indication. That approach was adopted because the prohibition of specific practices — the approach followed in the existing legislation —allows rogue traders to invent new misleading practices not subject to the prohibition.
It does, however, have a potential disadvantage— that it may leave some uncertainty for the honest trader who wants to advertise that he is offering a bargain about whether a particular indication complies with the law. One way of overcoming this uncertainty is to provide that compliance with the code should be a complete defence. A trader could thus follow the relevant provisions of the code and be certain that he could not be convicted.
Against this, it has been suggested that making compliance a defence would allow rogue traders to exploit loopholes in the code. That argument is misplaced for two reasons. First, a trader could rely on the code only so far as it was relevant. He could not, for example, comply with the code in one respect, adopt an additional practice not addressed by the code and claim a defence in respect of that latter practice. He would have to argue that the practice was not misleading on its own merits with no reference to the code.
Secondly, should it transpire that any practice sanctioned by the code is open to abuse, there is a procedure for amending the code which could, if appropriate, be operated very quickly.
While the Bill was passing through the other place, we were presented with a package of proposals having the agreement of many of the main interests involved. The package included a proposal that compliance with the

code should not be a complete defence. Instead, it was proposed that contravention or compliance should tend to establish guilt or innocence.
Clearly, proposals having the agreement of those interests must be taken seriously, but there were others not represented by the Condordat, as the group came to be known, whose views had to be heard. Therefore, we consulted widely and undertook to reflect the outcome of the consultation in the Bill. The consultation revealed a consensus in support of the status proposed by the Concordat. I therefore informed the House on Second Reading that I intended to lay the amendments now before the Committee.
The amendments that I have laid achieve what the Concordat sought; that is, that contravention of or compliance with the code will tend to establish that an offence has or has not been committed but will not be conclusive of either.
The amendment also has another effect. If a court is satisfied that a misleading price indication has indeed been given, the defences provided by the Bill may arise. The code may, in some circumstances, be relevant to some of those defences, in particular the due diligence defence provided by clause 39. In those circumstances, the amendment will enable compliance with or contravention of the code to be used in evidence as tending to establish or negative the defence.
Thus, a trader who complied with the code would not have a certain defence, but he would be very unlikely to be convicted of an offence. I believe that it will be in very unusual circumstances only that an enforcement authority will bring a prosecution against a trader who has complied with the code's relevant provisions.
In the light of these considerations, I believe that the status given by the amendment would give honest traders almost the degree of confidence that would have followed from the Government's original proposals. However, should rogue traders find any loophole in the code, which they can exploit to give a misleading price indication, the courts will now have the opportunity to convict in appropriate circumstances. There will, therefore, be powerful incentives for traders to comply with the code, which I am sure we can all agree is the desirable outcome.
Given the extent of support for this alternative in both Houses of Parliament and outside, I therefore think that the amendment is the most appropriate way to proceed.

Mr. Michael Shersby: First, I wish to declare an interest. I am a member of the council of the Food and Drink Federation. As I understand it, the amendment will change the status of the code of practice so that it will be of evidential weight only in legal proceedings. Both the food and drink industry and the confectionery industry supported the original drafting of the clause, and, for reasons that I should like briefly to explain to the House, they are concerned about the clause as it will be if the amendment is carried.
The Concordat, which is comprised of retail, consumer and enforcement associations, has made representations about the status of the proposed code of practice and it argued that some provisions should be covered by regulations. The Minister has said that he proposes to accept the Concordat's proposal on the status of the code of practice and I assume that that is why he has tabled the amendment. If the amendment is carried, the code of


practice will no longer constitute an absolute defence, as he has mentioned, but will merely be of evidential weight in legal proceedings.
Originally, as the clause was understood widely by those in the food and drink industry, the code's status as a defence meant that it set out what was good practice. Therefore, traders could see clearly what action they could take to remain within the law. Enforcement officers would also have the certainty that practices endorsed by the code were within the law. Disputes about whether particular practices were misleading or not therefore would be confined to those actions by traders who fell outside the provisions of the code, thus considerably narrowing the scope of such disputes to arise in the first place.
Furthermore, traders would have considerable flexibility in the use of price indications, and scope to develop new pricing practices that were not misleading. Consumers' interests would have been served by the widest possible adoption by traders of pricing practices in the code of practice which would set a standard of behaviour that would prevent consumers being misled. It would facilitate consumers comparing price claims by competing traders, and price comparisons would be more transparent than at present.
The original absolute defence status of the code of practice was, in the view of many people in the food industry, preferable in that it added a degree of flexibility. The person giving the indication still had the option of being able to show that, despite non-compliance with the code, he had not misled in practice. This would have avoided the arbitrary and rigid rules that are a feature of the present Bargain Offers Order. The fear that rogue traders could get around the provisions of the code and give misleading price indications while still being able to show that they had complied with the code, does not stand up. If there are practices which are endorsed by the code but which are misleading, I understand that so far none have emerged in the Department of Trade and Industry's consultations to date. Furthermore, the Bill contains provision to enable an amended version of the code to be approved at a subsequent date.
Given that my hon. and learned Friend the Under Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has taken this Concordat proposal on hoard, it seems clear that the House will not reinstate the original status of the code of practice; that is to say, the absolute defence if the amendment is carried. However, while manufacturers and traders will be able to live with the amended status, there is a feeling that this route will introduce rigidity into the system, whereas the original proposal would have allowed greater flexibility in interpretation to ensure that action is taken only when there is a genuine concern that a price comparison or promotional offer is misleading to the consumer.
I am not clear whether my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary has accepted the Concordat's proposals for regulations on specific provisions. Will he clarify his intentions a little further on these points: the 28-day rule; recommended retail prices; introductory offers; worth and value claims; and substantiation? In the view of the food industry, it is not necessary to regulate on those provisions. Traders and consumers will benefit from having the requirements covered in a comprehensive code of practice rather than the rigidity and relative technicality of regulations.
Price indications cover a wide range of circumstances and in the past have not been easy to regulate in specific statutory controls. The code of practice approach offers greater flexibility for traders than an approach which involves specific requirements in regulations. Regulations would lay down requirements that must be followed, giving rise to a number of specific offences rather than a single general offence, and would give rise to potential difficulties for enforcement authorities in identifying the appropriate charge to bring.
The Bill does not make it a legal requirement to follow the provisions of the code of practice in respect of the 28-day rule. Therefore, provided that the price indication is not misleading, it is open to traders to adopt a different basis for their price comparisons and, if they so wish, to indicate that they have done so. This allows flexibility for traders within the constraints of the general prohibition on misleading price indications. I hope, therefore, having explained to my hon. and learned Friend some of the worries that still exist in the food and drink industry and in the confectionary industry, that he will take those matters into account. Even if the amendment is carried, I hope that he will keep the matter under review.

Mr. Howard: The observations of my hon. Friend demonstrate convincingly the impossibility of pleasing everyone. We responded to the views expressed by the Concordat which represented an overwhelming consensus that our original proposals should be revised. My hon. Friend has advanced many cogent reasons in support of the original provisions in the legislation, but in the view of those whom we consulted, those advantages were outweighed by the disadvantages to which I referred when I moved the amendment.
The answer to the questions raised by my hon. Friend in relation to the regulations is that no final decisions have yet been taken as to which areas will be covered by regulations. However, he can rest assured that we will consult widely on those matters. It may be that the interests that he has represented this evening will be more fortunate in the context of those consultations and representations than they may have been in the context of the ones that led to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 23, line 6, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'subsection (1 A) above'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 and 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

TEST PURCHASES 7.45 pm

Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 25, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and insert
'be carried out by or at the expense of the authority in a manner prescribed by or determined under the regulations'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 38, in page 28, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
'be carried out by or at the expense of the authority in a manner prescribed by or determined under the regulations'.

Mr. Williams: I simply press the point made by the local authorities that, if the amendment is agreed to, by being allowed to choose the testing place that they prefer and by not being inhibited, as the Bill would otherwise do, they would have greater flexibility and also better cost benefits. Since the Government have been arguing that local authorities should try to be more efficient, local authorities feel that there is a case where they are arguing for efficiency and where the Government are limiting them. The Minister should take the opportunity to state his case.

Mr. Howard: The amendment would remove an essential power of the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulation that tests should be carried out only by specified test houses. This is not by any means a new power. It has been available for many years under both the Consumer Protection Act 1961 and the Consumer Safety Act 1978. It is important to appreciate the purpose of the powers in clauses 28(3) and 30(7). They are designed for a specific purpose, to restrict the choice of test house where the test concerned is of such a technical nature that it is necessary to require the appointment of a particular testing laboratory or laboratories to carry out the test under strictly controlled conditions. This may be necessary, for example, to achieve uniformity in the quality of technical evidence.
Some of those tests—for example, those relating to fire resistance and electrical safety —require expensive, specialised equipment and experienced, qualified people to operate it. The equipment and those people are to be found in only a limited number of test houses. Therefore, it is prudent in those cases to require that the tests be carried out only by establishments specified by the Secretary of State. If this were not stipulated — it would be impossible, if the amendment were adopted, for such a stipulation to be included in safety regulations — the enforcement authorities would be inclined to have the tests carried out by whatever laboratory, consultant, local technical college or similar body offered to carry them out on the most attractive terms. That would mean that the test results would be open to challenge in court, with expert witnesses disputing whether the specified test method had been followed or not.
The absence of any restricted lits of competent test houses would lead to uncertainty, dispute, and wasted effort and resources. It is far better for the legality or illegality of those products to be established beyond doubt and the only way of avoiding such doubt is to require that the hightly technical tests involved be carried out by only those establishments, relatively few in number, that are competent to do so, and are recognised by all experts in the field as being the only such establishments.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it has been and will continue to be our policy to use the power sparingly and to make every effort to mitigate any possible restrictive effect by approving as many test houses or laboratories as are technically competent to carry out tests. I hope that, with that assurance, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.

Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

POWER OF CUSTOMS OFFICER TO DETAIN GOODS

Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 28, line 27, leave out 'forty-eight hours' and insert 'two working days.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 50.

Mr. Howard: These provisions have been the subject of considerable debate. The purpose of the amendments is to extend the period during which Customs and Excise can detain imported goods. The question how long it should be able to detain goods was debated extensively during the passage of the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986. The Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) originally provided for 72 hours. The Government considered that 24 hours was sufficient and a compromise of 48 hours was eventually agreed.
Local authorities consider that, particularly over weekends and bank holidays, 48 hours does not allow sufficient time for them to form a view on whether to exercise their powers. The local authority associations have wanted the detention period to be used as a time when they can make rather more extensive examination of the goods concerned without having to use their formal powers to seize or suspend the goods, powers which would attract liability to pay compensation in the event that the goods turned out to be safe.
This issue has been a major bone of contention. It was raised on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report in another place and on Second Reading in this place. Having listened carefully to the points that have been raised in the many discussions on the subject, and having given further consideration to the potential difficulties of enforcement, I accept that significant difficulties may arise where the 48-hour period encompasses a weekend or a bank holiday. To overcome those difficulties, I propose that the period during which the Customs and Excise may detain imported goods should he altered to two working days. That will make no difference in the majority of cases, and therefore minimises the risk of challenge from the Community institutions. It will allow the enforcement authorities much greater flexibility in those cases where real difficulties may arise. I hope that the House will agree that this allows an adequate time for the limited purposes of the provision.

Mr. Williams: I welcome this change. It gives effect to amendments that we asked the Minister to make. I can only observe that it takes a long time to persuade the Minister to make even the most minor concessions. We have spent over a year trying to do that, and it has taken a general election to squeeze this concession from him. I am glad that he now recognises that the arguments that some of his hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, put forward about the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986 were valid and it leaves me with a grave suspicion that his stubbornness on so many other amendments that have been moved in the other place and here is something that he and the enforcement officers may come to regret. However, it would be churlish to make a sour point on a concession. It improves the Bill, and in those circumstances we welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 28, line 30, at end insert—
'(2A) In subsection (1) above the reference to two working days is a reference to a period of forty-eight hours calculated from the time when the goods in question are seized but disregarding so much of any period as falls on a Saturday or Sunday or on Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the United Kingdom where the goods are seized.'—[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 32 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

REPORTS ETC.

Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 34, line 21, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This amendment also arises from a request from the local authorities, which feel that the requirements built into the Bill are cumbersome and costly. They ask whether such a wide-ranging requirement needs to be part of the Bill. This is to give the Minister than opportunity, hopefully, to have second thoughts on this issue.

Mr. Howard: This clause provides that a report on the functions relating to safety in the Bill should be submitted to Parliament at least once every five years. It would seem right that Parliament should he informed of the extent to which the powers in this Bill are being used and of the extent to which non-complying goods are found on the market. Basically we want to know whether the Bill is effective.
In order for the Secretary of State to prepare such a report, he needs information from the enforcement authorities. This clause therefore requires the enforcement authorities to report to the Secretary of State, as and when he directs, on how they have exercised their functions under this Bill.
These provisions arc not new and are not an unnecessary additional burden on the enforcement authorities. Similar provisions are already contained in section 8(2) of the Consumer Safety Act 1978, which will be consolidated in this Bill. The House may recall that the Secretary of State submitted a report to Parliament in October 1986 on the working of that Act. The report to Parliament was based on the annual reports submitted by the enforcement authorities. This clause provides that the first report on the Bill before us shall be laid not more than five years after the October report to Parliament. I hope that that information will suffice to persuade the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 37, line 7, at end
insert—
'(5) In Scotland, any reference in this Act to things comprised in land by virtue of being attached to it is a reference to moveables which have become heritable by accession to heritable property.'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

MEANING OF "SUPPLY"

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 37, line 12, leave out
',or a contract for work and materials,'

No. 17, in page 37, line 13, at end insert—
',( ) the performance of any contract for work and materials to furnish the goods;'.

No. 18, in page 37, line 36, at end insert—
`(2A) Subject to subsection (3) below, the performance of any contract by the erection of any building or structure on any land or by the carrying out of any other building works shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a supply of goods in so far as, but only in so far as, it involves the provision of any goods to any person by means of their incorporation into the building, structure or works.'.

No. 19, in page 38, line 15, at end add—
`(7A) A ship, aircraft or motor vehicle shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act as supplied to any person by reason only that services consisting in the carriage of goods or passengers in that ship, aircraft or vehicle, or in its use for any other purpose, are provided to that person in pursuance of an agreement relating to the use of the ship, aircraft or vehicle for a particular period or for particular voyages, flights or journeys.'.[Mr. Howards]

Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

SAVINGS FOR CERTAIN PRIVILEGES

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 38, line 16, leave out from 'requiring' to end of line 20 and insert
'any person to produce any records if he would be entitled to refuse to produce those records in any proceedings in any court on the grounds that they are the subject of legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, that they contain a confidential communication made by or to an advocate or solicitor in that capacity, or as authorising any person to take possession of any records which are in the possession of a person who would be so entitled.'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendents No. 55, in page 38, leave out line 29.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will, be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53.

Mr. Williams: We had a dispute over this issue on Second Reading and would undoubtedly have had quite a lengthy discussion on this had the Bill been proceeding in the normal manner, because hon. Members on both sides object to what the Government are doing. The import of the Bill is that it will no longer be possible legally


to require origin marking on goods in this country. Many organisations, particularly those concerned about South Africa and apartheid and so on, are deeply concerned that in the future there will be no possibility of imposing requirements on imported goods.
On Second Reading the Minister suggested that he was responding to a requirement of the EEC. We well understand the difficulties which he faces, but he went on to say also that further processes had been open to the Government: for example, they could have appealed, but they decided not to. Instead, they have capitulated at the first squeak from the EEC on this matter.
It is unfortunate that they have taken that course of action, particularly since, as yet, although it is many months since they first stated their intention, the promised form of a replacement for this protection has not been forthcoming. The Minister said on Second Reading that he was still looking for an alternative form of words. It has been a great many months. He said that one of the reasons for putting this provision in the Bill was that if we were good boys and showed the Common Market that we were willing to come to heel every time it scowled at us even slightly, it will no doubt be kinder to us when the Minister goes forward with his eventual proposal for an alternative. That is a dubious argument. It would be better to tell the EEC that, until we have an agreement, we are not willing to make any statutory concessions. We must have agreement on what is to replace the provision.
I have moved the amendment not to initiate discussion at this stage of parliamentary proceedings, but to give the Minister a last opportunity to reconsider. I notice that, instead of doing that, the Minister has tabled his own amendment to require at least an affirmative resolution. That takes up a point that I made on Second Reading or in Committee. The Minister's amendment is at least helpful. However, I still believe that the Bill would be better and our negotiating position stronger if the Minister accepted the amendment to withdraw the subsection.

8 pm

Mr. Howard: May I begin by outlining briefly the background to the amendments. The Trade Descriptions Act 1972 requires imported goods bearing a United Kingdom name or mark to be accompanied by an indication of the country of origin. It does not impose general origin marking requirements. It is intended to protect consumers against being misled by goods that are presented in certain potentially misleading ways. The Commission has said that it considers the 1972 Act to be incompatible with the treaty of Rome and has taken the first step in infraction proceedings that will lead fairly rapidly to a case in the European Court of Justice if we are not to repeal the 1972 Act.
In 1985, the European Court of Justice ruled against the United Kingdom's 1981 origin marking order in a case which the United Kingdom had vigorously contested. After careful study of that judgment, the Government reluctantly concluded that there was little prospect of successfully defending a case against the 1972 Act and that an unsuccessful United Kingdom defence could well have been counter-productive, since the terms of an adverse judgment might well have inhibited the scope for successful arrangements.
I am conscious of the widespread and strong feeling about origin marking. I am aware that many people feel that it would be wrong for the House to settle important changes in the law in this area without fuller debate than the present position allows. With that in mind, I have tabled an amendment which provides that the commencement order giving effect to the repeal of the 1972 Act will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Although that is a somewhat unusual procedure, I believe that it meets the present situation. It will relieve the next Parliament from the burden of repeating the primary legislative process while at the same time ensuring that the implications of repeal can be properly debated before it takes effect and by reference to proposals for successor arrangements.
Our latest exchanges with the Commission lead us to believe that it is likely to be possible to introduce a successor regime acceptable in Community law. That would provide a valuable degree of continuing protection to consumers in the form of an obligation to provide a sign of origin in any case where goods are presented in such a way that they can reasonably be expected to create the impression in the mind of the consumer that they were manufactured or produced in a different place from where they were produced or manufactured. Arrangements on those lines could be introduced by order under section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the making and entry into force of such an order could be synchronised with the order bringing into force the repeal of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972.

Mr. Williams: I am glad to hear that at last some form of words has been arrived at, but I am afraid that it does not sound adequate to me. For example, where goods carry no marking, they will escape the provisions envisaged by the Minister. Therefore, for the reasons that I have put forward, I still believe that the Minister should have accepted the amendment. However, in this evening's circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clauses 48 and 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISION

Amendments made: No. 51, in page 39, line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above bringing into force the repeal of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, a repeal of any provision of that Act or a repeal of that Act or of any provision of it for any purposes, unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

No. 22, in page 39, line 36, leave out subsection (8). —[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PART I

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 42, line 40, leave out from 'unless' to 'and' in line 41 and insert—
'a relevant claim was made within that period and has not been finally disposed of.

No. 30, in page 42, line 42, at end insert—


'(IA) If, at the expiration of the period of 10 years mentioned in subsection (I) above, a relevant claim has been made but has not been finally disposed of, the obligation to which the claim relates shall be extinguished when the claim is finally disposed of.'.

No. 31, in page 42, line 43, at end insert—
`a claim is finally disposed of when—

(a) a decision disposing of the claim has been made against which no appeal is competent;
(b) an appeal against such a decision is competent with leave, and the time limit for leave has expired and no application has been made or leave has been refused;
(c) leave to appeal against such a decision is granted or is not required, and no appeal is made within the time limit for appeal; or
(d) the claim is abandoned'.

No. 32, in page 43, line 31, after 'him', insert 'in all the circumstances'.

No. 23, in page 45, line 4, leave out '(g)' and insert '(gg)'—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

AMENDMENTS OF PART I OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 52, line 20, leave out
`forty-eight hours' and insert 'two working days'.

No. 53, in page 52, line 23, at end insert—
`(3) In subsection (1) above the reference to two working days is in a reference to a period of forty-eight hours calculated from the time when the goods in question are seized but disregarding so much of any period as falls on a Saturday or Sunday or on Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of Great Britain where the goods are seized.'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 55, line 41, at end insert—

'The Insolvency Act 1986

12. In section 281(5)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (discharge from bankruptcy not to release bankrupt from liability in respect of personal injuries), for the word "being" there shall be substituted the words "or to pay damages by virtue of Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, being in either case".'.

No. 43, in page 55, line 41, at end insert—

The Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987

For paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Schedule to the Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987 (enforcement) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
3. Part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (enforcement), except section 31 (power of customs officer to detain goods), shall have effect as if the provisions of this Act were safety provisions within the meaning of that Act; and in Part V of that Act (miscellaneous and supplemental), except in section 49 (Northern Ireland) references to provisions of the said Part IV shall include references to those provisions as applied by this paragraph.".'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Clause 2

LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS

Mr. Williams: I beg to move a manuscript amendment, in page 2, line 50, leave out "industrial" and insert "initial".
This amendment returns to an issue that we discussed at some length in Committee. I do not intend to delay the House for long now. However, the Minister will recollect that there was some support from the Conservative Benches for our argument that the Bill missed the opportunity to extend protection to the consumer with regard to the supply of foodstuffs. We regret that the Minister has narrowed the protection afforded by the original directive whereby the only exemptions would be for foodstuffs that had not undergone initial processing. The Minister has limited protection and included the term "industrial process".
We have had extensive discussions on this point and we believe that the Minister has missed an opportunity. We have given an undertaking that we will facilitate the progress of the Bill, and we do not want to delay it for this item. However, had this been a normal Report stage, we would have had a considerable debate and probably a vote on this issue. Although we are not hopeful, we want formally to make the effort to give the Minister the opportunity to recant even at this, the last moment.

Mr. Howard: The preamble to the directive explains why we have chosen the words that are in the Bill. Perhaps it would be for the benefit of the House if I quoted the relevant passage in the third recital:
Whereas a liability without fault should apply only to movables which have been industrially produced; whereas, as a result, it is appropriate to exclude liability for agricultural products and game, except where they have undergone a processing of an industrial nature which cause a defect in these products".
That makes it clear that the reason why we have chosen to use the words "industrial process" in clause 2(4) is that they more accurately represent the intentions of the directive.
Perhaps I could begin by dealing with the use of those words and then say why I recommend the House to reject the amendment to line 50. We have departed from the words of the directive only when it has been important either to clarify the intentions of the directive or to use words which are more readily understood in the United Kingdom. In this case there are two reasons for us to use the words that we have used. The first is the intention of the directive as set out in the preamble which I have just read. I should also remind the House of the overall intention of the directive which is to harmonise the law for defective products that have been industrially produced. If we had used the word in the directive — that is, agricultural produce which had not undergone an "initial" process— we would not have conveyed the intentions of the directive that it is the industrial nature of the process which is important, not its place in the sequence of processes.
The second reason for using the words "industrial process" is that the words "initial process" could easily be interpreted to mean that, while the initial processing of agricultural produce might put that produce outside the exemption, subsequent processing—that is, the second and third process to which the produce may be subjected


—might not be caught by the exemption. Although this was obviously not the intention of the directive, it could be so argued on a strict interpretation of the wording of article 2. We have avoided that potential lack of clarity by using the words that we have. They have the additional advantage of reflecting the intentions of the directive.
For those reasons, I hope the House will reject the amendment.

Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third reading read.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am glad that we have been able to complete consideration of the Bill in such an expeditious manner, no doubt having something to do with the rather unusual circumstances in which this takes place.
I pay tribute to the co-operation of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who has confirmed the welcome that he gave the Bill on Second Reading by the way that he has assisted its passage. This legislation has been welcomed by both sides of the House and has been enthusiastically greeted by consumers and producers alike. I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

Mr. Williams: May I repeat our welcome to the Bill? We regret that one or two improvements that we and other hon. Members suggested have not been included, but it would not have been our wish to see the Bill fall because of those differences.
As I observed earlier, it is good that we have managed to continue a consensus approach on consumer issues, as we have done over a great many years. It has meant that the public have benefited from consumer legislation which is not continually threatened with repeal and alteration for political reasons. Therefore, we welcome the Bill. It could have been better but we are glad that it is completing its proceedings.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I should like to record my welcome for the Bill on behalf of my constituents. I believe it to be a very important and valuable piece of legislation and I am glad that it has been possible to carry it in this Parliament.
I am glad also that my hon. and learned Friend has taken account of some concerns expressed by those engaged in research in the pharmaceutical industry. They are particularly happy with the provisions of clause 4(1) (e)dealing with the state of scientific and technical knowledge. If this so-called state-of-the-art defence had been deleted, many companies in the pharmaceutical industry, three of which are in my constituency, would have been deterred from marketing potentially valuable novel products, whether intended to treat currently lethal conditions such as AIDS or lung cancer, or painful or disabling states such as arthritis, schizophrenia or senile dementia. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has responded to those legitimate concerns. Because of the

consumer protection which the Bill provides in so many ways, there will still be every encouragement to develop new medicines for the benefit of the health of the people.

Mr. Clement Freud: I would also like to welcome the Bill. On behalf of my constituents, I have one broad question which I would like to ask the Minister. I have in my constituency, in Wisbech, a prestigious printer by the name of Balding and Mansell which is concerned that it may be blamed for textual errors in its printing. The British Printing Industries Federation wrote to the Minister and received a reply which said:
It seems to us reasonably clear that the Directive does not apply to mis-statement.
I would simply like the Minister to make it clear that it is not the intention of the Bill to do so.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may remember that, in 1979, Longman published a chemical textbook in which it got wrong a proportion between two totally unpronouncable chemical elements; it printed that the proportion should be 2:30 instead of 2:3. A school had a major explosion as a result. Of course Longman, who printed the book, would be responsible. I would simply like the Minister to say that it is not an intention of the legislation to hold a printer responsible for textual errors.

Mr. William Cash: I simply wish to raise a point to which I referred on Second Reading. I had tabled amendment No. 26 for consideration in Committee, but in view of the circumstances with which we are faced and the knowledge that we would not divide on it, it seemed inappropriate to press it.
The foundry industry made it clear that it was not satisfied with the wording of clause 4(1) (f). I have had a letter from my hon. and learned Friend, in which he has explained that he thinks that the concern of the industry can be dealt with under the terms of his letter. We hope that the interpretation which is placed on those words by the Minister will prove to be correct. This is an important and serious matter. If the Minister's interpretation were to turn out not to be correct, and if the matter proceeded to court, no doubt we would have an opportunity to correct the position in subsequent legislation.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I heartily welcome the Bill and praise the work of my hon. and learned Friend at this late hour in this Parliament in seeking a dialogue with the Opposition and other parties in bringing the legislation to fruition. The Bill will be in the interests of consumers, including my constituents. We should not lose sight of the cardinal point, that each year some 7,000 people die in Great Britain in home accidents, a greater number than are killed on the roads. In addition, more than 3 million people sustain injuries which require medical attention. Clearly, with those devastating figures before the House, we must address ourselves to consumer safety.
In many ways, this is a blockbuster Bill because we are dealing with the entire concept of safety at the stage of purchase. Furthermore, we have given greater resources to local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland. I note the response from my hon. and learned Friend that that greater provision has increased from £60.9 million in the financial year 1983–84, to about £72·6 million in 1985–86. However, notwithstanding those extra financial


provisions, there are still some remaining doubts and queries. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider them in the time that remains to us.
The new power of suspension of the threat of compensation is still a worry, especially where the tests can be carried out only by designated test houses. I understand that it can take three weeks for the official test reports to be received. The House has not had a full chance to examine the ramifications of that. So that the enforcement authorities are not discouraged, the strict rules on compensation need to be relaxed, either by an exemption from the compensation provisions, if an authority can demonstrate that it had acted reasonably, or for a limited period. I recommend a time limit of seven days during which an authority can arrange its confirmatory tests. In other words, compensation would not be available during the initial period if the goods were later found to comply.
I am not clear from the Bill who should receive the suspension notice. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend can advise us. Is it the importer, the haulier or the warehouse owner? Can suspended goods be moved to another warehouse without any breach? In such a situation, there is no requirement for the local authority to be informed in advance of such a move, but vital goods can be properly supervised. These and other matters would, had the normal legislative process taken its course, have been examined week upon week and no doubt into the midnight hours. However, it has all been concertina-ed into a few days. The period of 48 hours is inadequate to determine whether goods might be suspect and whether that amounts to time for seizure and detention.
For a long time, I have felt that improvements in consumer safety are overdue. However, in this Parliament and with this major Bill, we have taken a step forward, not

only for the consumer but also for the bona fide producer and retailer. I believe that that will be widely welcomed, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the remarks that have been made and for the welcome that the Bill has received from hon. Members of all parties. Two specific points have been made which call for a reply from me.
The hon. Member for Cambridge, North-East (Mr. Freud) asked for an assurance that it was not intended that the type of printing error to which he referred would give rise to liability under the Bill. I am happy to give him that assurance, although that may be rather less useful than the observation that I made in the letter to which he referred— that it is reasonably clear from the language of the legislation that that should not be its effect. Having regard to the attitude of the courts to the deliberations of this House, the clarity of the language, rather than any statement of intention, is likely to be of greater assurance to those who might be affected by such provisions.
In answer to the specific question posed by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) as to whether suspension notices should be served on hauliers, shopkeepers or importers— I believe that those were the three categories that he identified — it depends on the circumstances, and especially on who had possession of the goods at the relevant time. It would be possible to serve a suspension notice on any or all of those categories, i f they were the people in possession of the goods.
Naturally, I am delighted that we have been able to make progress and to complete the Bill's consideration in this House and I am grateful to all those hon. Members who have contributed to its speedy passage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Parliamentary and other Pensions Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 2

POWER TO PROVIDE FOR PENSIONS

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that amendment No.1 is not to be moved. Therefore, we shall consider amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
'(aa)may provide, in the case of a person who ceases to be a Member of the House of Commons in any year between the ages of 55 and 60, having completed 20 years' service, for the payment of an unabated pension to him from the age of 60.'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3 in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
`(aa) may extend the entitlement to full and unabated pension to a person who, having reached the age of 60 and after completing 20 years of service as a Member of the House of Commons, has stood as a candidate and been defeated at a parliamentary election.'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
'(aa) may provide for the payment of a lump sum to a person on his ceasing to be a Member of the House of Commons at the age of 65 or over, calculated on the same basis as the resettlement grant payable to a Member who has left the service of the House before attaining pensionable age.'.

Mr. John McWilliam: I beg your pardon, Mr. Walker. I thought that amendment No. 9 was to be moved by the Government.

The Chairman: No. That amendment now goes into what would be its proper place in the sequence of our proceedings. Therefore, it will come after Government amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. McWilliam: I do not wish to detain the House for any longer than is necessary. It is not our intention to press amendment No. 2. However, we expect to hear from the Leader of the House something about the subject that we are discussing.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am grateful for that great constitutional innovation. I am unable to comment on what I know would have been powerful speeches delivered on behalf of amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
The merits of these amendments are almost self-evident. They would specify a change that could be made by regulations under the power in clause 2. That power is already wide enough to allow regulations dealing with each of the proposed changes to be made. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify, in this way, individual matters that regulations might cover. Indeed, I do not believe that it is desirable to do so. However, it is clear that the amendments are intended to create the presumption that the scheme will be changed in these ways.
The first amendment would allow regulations to be made to extend the facility for early retirement with a full pension paid at the age of 60 to all Members with 20 years' service, who retire after the age of 55. The intention of the

present rule, which allows Members with long service to retire at a general election at the age of 60, or after, without abatement of their pension, is to allow them to retire at the general election before their 65th birthday, rather than waiting until the next election or causing a by-election.
Although I recognise that the rule can cause some hard cases, changing the scheme as envisaged in the amendment would create a whole new set of anomalies. Those who retire at 55 with 194½ years of service, for example, would complain that the new rules were unfair to them. Furthermore, that would exaggerate the distinction between two classes of Member, those who can take their pension at 60 and those who must wait until they are 65.
The second amendment is intended to extend eligibility for immediate payment of a full and unabated pension to a Member who is aged at least 60, with at least 20 years' service, who stands for re-election, but is defeated, at a general election. That point can be dealt with briefly, because the scheme was amended to allow that during the passage of the Parliamentary Pensions etc. Act 1984. However, the fact that confusion has arisen about that provision is a good example of why the Bill is needed. This part of the existing legislation is so complicated, after the series of amendments, that it is not surprising that hon. Members have found it difficult to follow.
The third amendment would allow regulations to be made to provide for payments from the pension fund to Members retiring at the age of 65 and over, which would be equivalent to the resettlement grant paid from the Consolidated Fund to younger Members on leaving the House. In considering this point, I am sure that the Committee will wish to take account of the fact that the scheme already provides for Members to receive by commutation of part of their pension the maximum tax-free lump sum permitted by the Inland Revenue rules in similar private sector schemes.
I recognise that that is not directly comparable with the resettlement grant, which is a straight payment from the Consolidated Fund and is a benefit over and above what is provided by the pension scheme. Nevertheless, the commutation arrangements have clear tax benefits and should not be discounted when considering the means available to Members to secure a lump sum on retirement.
8.30 pm
I remind the Committee that resettlement grants are intended to tide over Members who leave the House before normal retirement age and need to re-establish themselves in alternative employment. Paying resettlement grants to Members past normal retirement age would be a new departure and I am not convinced that it would be justified.
However, I acknowledge that there are anomalies in the area where eligibility for immediate pension and for resettlement grants overlaps. I recognise that the area dealt with in the first amendment is also one where anomalies arise. Taking into account this point and the others raised during the Second Reading debate, I now believe that we should refer the scheme as a whole to the Top Salaries Review Body for an early review. In particular, I envisage that the review body would be asked to consider the early retirement arrangements and the anomalies caused by the availability of both a resettlement grant and an immediate and full pension to those who retire between the ages of 60 and 65 with 20 years' service.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I express the hope, which I trust the Leader of the House


will endorse, that if the TSRB finds in favour of changing the existing arrangements, those of our colleagues over the age of 65 who are leaving the House now will not be excluded from benefit.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that that is a factor which the TSRB will almost certainly consider in its judgment of what adjustments might have to be made to our scheme. Certainly its attention will be drawn to the right hon. Gentleman's intervention when the terms of reference are resolved at the beginning of the next Parliament.
The precise terms of reference for the TSRB would be a matter for discussion through the usual channels. That, again, covers the right hon. Gentleman's point. It would be helpful to set that in hand at an early stage in the next Parliament so that the House and the Government may have an opportunity to consider the TSRB's comments and possible changes to the scheme sufficiently in advance of April 1988 for Members to make an informed choice about whether to opt out of the parliamentary pensions scheme, as they will then able to do.
I do not believe that it is sensible for us to consider piecemeal the anomalies thrown up by the present rules of the scheme in advance of the TSRB's review of the scheme as a whole. To do so would merely create further anomalies. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that that is a reasonable response to his formal moving of the amendment.

Mr. Peter Shore: I had hoped that the minor changes which are embodied in the amendments and which would have a negligible impact on the finances of the parliamentary pension fund, which is in robust health, could be agreed and accepted by the Government.
The anomalies are clearly established. I had an exchange of letters with the Minister of State, Treasury, which entirely satisfied me that my anxiety on the second of the amendments was misplaced so I do not see why that should be pursued or referred to the TSRB. However, I am worried about the two remaining anomalies. The first concerns a person who ceases to be a Member of the House of Commons in any year between the ages of 55 and 60, having completed 20 years of service, and who will not receive an unabated pension at the age of 60. The second anomaly is that while all other hon. Members are entitled to severance pay or resettlement grant if they lose their seats at a general election, the only hon. Members who are not entitled to a lump sum are those who have reached or passed the normal age of retirement. Those anomalies are small, but they so disfigure the features of our parliamentary pension fund arrangements that they should be removed.
While I accept that major changes in the parliamentary pension scheme should await a further report by the TSRB, I am disappointed that the Government take the view that even those minor anomalies should first be considered by the review body. May I at least suggest to the Leader of the House that there should be a two-stage reference to the TSRB? The first stage, which we hope would lead to a swift, short report, would cover precisely the anomalies that have been identified. The second stage, which would deal with more fundamental features of the scheme, would be the subject of a more considered report.
I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) when I say that

it is my strong hope that any benefit flowing from the removal of anomalies in the present scheme will be made available to our colleagues in the present Session who will not be with us when the new Parliament assembles.

Mr. Jack Dormand: I wish to add my disappointment to that of my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in relation to the resettlement grant. The reference of that and the other matters to the TSRB is a stalling exercise. I would have thought that the House could decide those matters. As has been said, the sum involved is negligible and, moreover, the fund is healthy.
It is generally recognised that the term "resettlement grant" is something of a misnomer. This has been taking place for many years in both the private and public sectors and is usually referred to as a lump sum on retirement. To designate it as a "resettlement grant" to help hon. Members to obtain alternative employment is a misuse of words. We are talking about hon. Members who have served many years, enduring the usual disadvantages of parliamentary life, such as long hours, and that should be recognised by what should be called a "lump sum", not a "resettlement grant". That is the basic difficulty facing the House.
We have had helpful private talks with the Leader of the House, who has a reputation for listening carefully. In view of what has been said by three hon. Members tonight, and as many right hon. and hon. Members have approached me as the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that this is an annoying and frustrating position. I hope that he will take cognisance of what we have said and see whether we can proceed differently from the way in which he has proposed.

Mr. Biffen: I shall respond briefly to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) about the terms of reference that will govern the consideration of the TSRB early in the next Parliament. Naturally, they must be the subject of widespread consultation through the usual channels. He will appreciate that I cannot say now, indeed it would be a gross presumption to say now, what those terms of reference will be. Certainly they will not be concluded merely by whoever happens to be in Government arid holding the post of Leader of the House. They will be the subject of proper consultation, but the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes is a perfectly fair one, because there should be a two-stage consideration of these matters. I am sure that that will be borne in mind.
I say to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) that the term "resettlement grant" is not an invention of the Treasury Bench. It was suggested by the TSRB in its report, which sought to make clear the purpose of the grant — the payment to an hon. Member who had left the House but who had not reached the age of retirement. It was clearly intended not just to be a supplement to one's position on leaving the House. It was specifically meant for someone who left the House in anticipation of having reached full retirement age.
I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said and he knows perfectly well that what he says, although he will not be here to grace us in the next Parliament, will echo


on to inspire those who have to consider the terms of reference for the TSRB, and I hope that he will be consoled by that thought.

Mr. McWilliam: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooks): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 8, after 'instrument', insert
'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'them' to end of line 14.

Mr. Brooke: On Second Reading several hon. Members expressed concern that the change from primary to secondary legislation, which the Bill proposes, would mean that the House of Commons would have fewer opportunities to debate and amend the scheme.
I agreed to consider that point and I am happy to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that time will be made available for a debate on an amendable motion before any regulations amending the scheme are made under clause 2. This would allow, for example, the sort of debate that we had in July 1983 on the recommendations of the TSRB which led to the changes to the scheme that were made in the 1984 Act. The arrangements will be similar to the procedure for determining hon. Members' pay and allowances.
In accordance with the procedure which I hope we will shortly enact, through amendment No. 9, the trustees' comments on the Government's proposals will be available to hon. Members for debate. The views of hon. Members expressed in the debate will be taken into account when the regulations are subsequently introduced. If such a debate is always to be held, it will usually be unnecessary to hold a debate on the regulations themselves. This amendment, therefore, substitutes the negative procedure for the affirmative procedure currently provided for in clause 2(7).

Mr. Shore: On Second Reading on 27 April I expressed my anxieties, which were widely shared, about the central purpose of the Bill, which is to enable further changes in the parliamentary pension scheme to be made not by amending legislation but by regulations issued by the Leader of the House. I think that the House took the point that if we were limited to debates on regulations we could not amend them, we could only vote them down, which is a considerable restriction on our normal freedom of debate and, furthermore, debates on regulations normally take one and a half hours. I thought that that was not a satisfactory way of proceeding and I suggested that changes should be introduced so that proposed changes could be put to the House in the form of an amendable motion.
That was where we left matters at the end of that debate and I was glad to receive a letter from the Leader of the House informing me:
We intend to give an undertaking that there should be an opportunity for Members to make their views clear, in a debate on an Amendable motion, before regulations are finalised.

That is the background to the Government amendments to clause 2 that are now before us. Having heard the Minister of State say quite categorically that the House will be able to debate an amendable motion before regulations are finalised, I consider that adequate assurances have been given and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State. I agree that we no longer need the affirmative resolution procedure and that we can be content with the negative resolution procedure which is the subject of the amendments.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I should like to add the thanks of Conservative Members for the way that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Minister have responded to the sentiments that were expressed in our debate on Second Reading and in the subsequent discussions. It seems that it has been a very constructive process and that the Bill has been much improved as a result.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'them' to end of line 14.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
'(7A) Where the Leader of the House of Commons has made any proposals for the making of regulations under this section, a copy of any representations made to him by the trustees of the Fund about the proposals shall be laid before the House of Commons.'.
Amendment No. 1, which the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) did not move, sought to give the trustees a more active role in the process of amending the scheme by regulations. We appreciate the knowledge and expertise of the trustees, which equip them for such a role. We are committed to allowing the House an opportunity to debate the proposals for amendments to the scheme, and it seems right that the trustees should advise the House at that stage, while leaving the final decision to the House. Amendment No. 9 would allow that by providing for the trustees' comments on proposals for amendments to the scheme to be laid before the House so that they can be available for debate. I described the arrangements for this debate when we debated amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the Government for their response. I think that I went over the top on Second Reading. I think that the Government have understood perfectly the point that I was making and it has been incorporated in their amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO FUND

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 44, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) If it appears from the report of the Government Actuary under this section that there is a deficiency or surplus in the operation of the scheme, then, subject to the following provisions of this section, the rates of contribution under this section may be increased, or, as the case may be, reduced in accordance with those provisions or all or any of the rates of benefit may be reduced or, as the case may be, increased in accordance with those provisions.


(4A) An alteration of the rate of contributions may be made by Resolution of the House of Commons.'.
As the House knows, I speak as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. My amendment reflects the concern that I expressed when the Bill had its Second Reading about the amendment in 1972 to the 1965 Act, under which benefits and/or Members' contributions could be varied in the light of any surplus or deficiency revealed by an actuarial review of the fund.
The 1972 Act, by contrast, left the Exchequer contribution to the fund to be determined by the Government Actuary at the level necessary to balance assets and liabilities. This means that the fund can never go into surplus, no matter how well the investments perform. At the same time, it means that our prospects of improving the pension scheme, based on successful investment management, are effectively vetoed since the Exchequer contribution to the fund falls in proportion as that management succeeds. That penalises good management and puts the trustees, in the view of some who have commented on the working of the 1972 Act, in the unenviable position of being incapable of acting in the best interests of the members no matter how successful they are in increasing the fund's assets. This, we must all recognise, is the other side of the coin to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred when he spoke of the fund being in such robust health.
Following a meeting that I attended in the office of the Leader of the House yesterday, he was prepared to amend the Bill so that there would always be a debate on the Government Actuary's report when it was laid before the House. That would have enabled the trustees and other hon. Members to suggest changes in the fund in the light of its assets and liabilities. I now understand that, unfortunately, parliamentary counsel has advised that an amendment on these lines would not be practicable under the existing Standing Orders. Instead of amending the Bill in the way in which the Leader of the House was prepared to do yesterday, I am informed that the Minister will give an undertaking tonight to provide time for a debate on every report from the Government Actuary. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty, just as I know that he understands both my reasons for tabling the amendment and that it is strongly based. I regard the Minister's undertaking as constructive and helpful and will not, therefore, press the amendment.

Mr. Brooke: The amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) seeks to provide a mechanism for benefits and Members' contributions to be adjusted in the light of the performance of the fund. It suggests a new procedure for amendments to he made to the scheme by resolution of the House. That would cause conflict with the object of the Bill, which is to enable the scheme to be set out, as far as possible, in consolidated form in regulations.
Nevertheless, I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members, both tonight and on Second Reading, that the performance of the fund should be reflected in their contributions or benefits. I recognise that they would welcome the opportunity to consider the scheme from time to time, in the light of the state of the fund. On behalf of the Government, I am happy to undertake— as the right

hon. Member for Wythenshawe foreshadowed—that a debate will be held on each future report from the Government Actuary.
In considering whether to go further we should remember that in the past Members have benefited from the arrangement— common to all public service schemes and many private sector schemes — whereby their contributions are fixed as a percentage of salary while the Exchequer meets the balance of the cost, which will therefore vary with the performance of the fund's investments. We should be cautious about proposing alternative systems linking Members' contributions to the state of the fund. That might offer benefits in the short term, but it would, in the longer term, shift the risk of fluctuating contributions from the Exchequer to Members. Such an arrangement may also hinder improvements to the scheme at times when the fund was not performing well.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe for stating that he will not press his amendment in the light of the undertaking that I have given on behalf of the Government. I know that hon. Members greatly appreciate the knowledge, expertise and services of the trustees, of whom the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is so distinguished a chairman. I hope that that is a suitably happy note on which to conclude the Committee stage.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

AMENDMENT OF MR. SPEAKER KING'S RETIREMENT ACT 1971

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I wish to make known something that is not generally appreciated by hon. Members.
In 1968, shortly after I was elected, I won first place in the ballot for private Members' motions and chose as a subject for debate the protection of the pension rights of early leavers. Mr. Speaker King, as he then was, asked me to talk to him before I made my maiden speech. I was glad to do that for the benefit of his advice. I told him that I had suffered the loss of my pension rights after 14 years' service in the company in which I was first employed. In exchange I had received only a small return on my contribution. I told Mr. Speaker King that, in due course, I hoped to be able to persuade the House to amend the law in relation to the rights of early leavers so that early leavers received fair compensation for their pension rights. Unfortunately, I have not yet been successful in that.
Mr. Speaker King told me that his circumstances were worse than mine. At the time of his election he had completed nearly 20 years' service and contributions to the teachers' pension fund. However, because he had not quit; completed those 20 years' service when he was elected to the House. he lost the whole of the benefit of those years of service. I believe that circumstances would be different now. However, I recall very well the statement he made to me as to his personal loss when he became a Member of the House.
I suggest that that is a particular reason why the House should view with sympathy the circumstances of Lord Maybray-King and make suitable provision for his surviving spouse.

Mr. Brooke: I said, prematurely, that we had finished the Committee on a happy note, but, by the remarks he has made, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has provided an even happier note.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered. Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. Dormand: The nature of this evening's debate and indeed all other debates on pensions have shown us all how complicated pensions matters are. That applies to all previous debates on pensions. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that I shall not be returning to the next Parliament, that demonstrates the difficulties of administering the scheme.
Tonight, I should like to pay tribute to the accountant, Mr. Dobson, his deputy, Mr. Lewis, and all the staff of the Fees Office for the splendid way in which they administer the scheme. If I may stray slightly out of order, that praise is not only for the way in which they administer the fund but for the way they deal with Members' allowances, expenses, and so on.
I know I speak for the whole House when I say that the service we receive from the Fees Office is extremely efficient. We receive unfailing courtesy from all the members of the Fees Office. It gives me great pleasure to place that tribute on record tonight.

Mr. Shore: I am sure that the whole House will wish to endorse the generous sentiments that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) has expressed in relation to the work that the Fees Office does on the complicated matter of the parliamentary pensions fund. I think it is also right for me to thank my hon. Frienf for his intervention and to say how greatly we shall miss him in the future. Tonight, we have listened to him with interest, as we have listened over many years to his many remarkable contributions to the proceedings of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Lord Chancellor's Salary

Motion made and Question proposed,

That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.—[Mr. Biffen.]

9 pm

Mr. Peter Shore: In this election year, the Government have been careful, with their pay awards to the public sector. Two years ago, the House was outraged when the Lord Chancellor's salary order allowed for an increase of 16·6 per cent. not only for the Lord Chancellor but for those employed in the highest levels of the public service.
That was in the same year that the Government were officially pursuing a 3 per cent. a year public sector pay policy and were reluctantly forced to concede 5·6 per cent. for nurses. This year, by contrast, the Lord Chancellor's and other top salaries will be increased by 4·5 per cent., while nurses are to receive 9 per cent. that is progress. Nevertheless, we should look more carefully at the absolute levels of pay and not just at the percentages.
The increase of 4·5 per cent. may appear to be modest, but it appears to be much less so when we recall that the Lord Chancellor's salary presently starts at £79,400 and, as a result of the order, will rise to £83,000 in October 1987. An extra £3,600 is a substantial increase. It appears to be all the more so when we consider the only other order affecting pay that the House has approved this week. I refer to the Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order 1987 that was approved last night. That order authorised the continuation of the Department of Employment's scheme to pay employers £15 a week subsidy to take on 18, 19 and 20-year-old employees, provided only that they are not paid more than £65 a week.
The contrast between yesterday's order and today's illustrates yet again not only the Government's resolute pursuit of income inequality but the totally contradictory view that the Government appear to hold about the working of incentives. For the poor, low pay is an incentive to hard work, and indeed the only means of gaining employment. For the well-to-do, high pay is a necessary incentive to hard work and a proper reward for talent. I do not accept that view— nor, I believe, do the great majority of people. Nor am I convinced in any way by the assertion that the Lord Chancellor's salary is immovably fixed in relation to that of the Lord Chief Justice. The doctrine that the Lord Chancellor must have whatever the LCJ receives, plus £2,000, is simply unconvincing.
I must warn the Government about future Top Salaries Review Body awards and top salaries in the public sector. In many instances, top salaries are set by what is considered to be comparable work and comparable responsibilty in the private sector. In the past two years, and particularly since the big bang in the City, there has been a veritable explosion of top rewards and top pay in the private sector, If that is to be reflected in future TSRB reports on pay in the top echelons of the public service, we shall see a massive increase in public sector pay at the top level. I do not believe that that will be acceptable to the great bulk of public sector employees, far too many of whom are among low-paid workers.
I shall say no more, but it is right to alert the House and the TSRB to what may become a major concern in the near future.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It would be a courtesy if I respond, albeit briefly, to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He has used the occasion to broaden the consideration of the Lord Chancellor's salary into a wider economic policy discussion. If, over the next few weeks, we are confronted by claims from him and his political colleagues that we need policies in terms of income determination and publicly influenced income determination that will squeeze differentials and if we are to have taxation policies that will squeeze differentials, we should be able to have an open and clear debate about what kind of society our respective economic policies are designed to produce, the right hon. Gentleman and I will engage in an argument with relish. I have a suspicion that, at the end of the day, there will be a better public appreciation and understanding of the argument for differentials than there would be for the argument for compressing them through either the mechanism of an incomes policy or taxation. However, I have no wish to broaden the matter unnecessarily.
However, I remind the House why the order is needed. The requirement stems from the link between the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. That link derives from the Top Salaries Review Body recommendation—again, not some thought emanating from the Treasury Bench, but a response to the 1983 TSRB recommendation that, in recognition of his position as head of the judiciary and his responsibility as a whole, the Lord Chancellor should be paid more than the Lord Chief Justice. I commend that attitude to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 29th April 1987 be approved.

Channel Tunnel Bill

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel 13111 stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1985–86, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House
The purpose of the motion is straightforward: it is to preserve the work already done in the House on the Channel Tunnel Bill to enable the Bill to recommence its passage through Parliament promptly in the new Session. Hon. Members will know that it is normal practice to carry over private and hybrid Bills from one session to the next and from one Parliament to the next. The Channel Tunnel Bill has already been carried over by both Houses from the 1985–86 session to the present one, and a further carry-over will, once again, enable work to continue without duplication and without imposing further burdens on the House and on the petitioners.
The effect of the motion is that, upon reintroduction to the new Session in the form in which it has been passed by this House in the present Session, it will be deemed to have passed all its stages in the new Session and will forthwith move straight to the other place. The House will then, in due course, receive the usual opportunity to consider amendments made in the other place before the Bill receives the Royal Assent. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hour is getting on and I shall not detain the House to an unreasonable extent, but, at the same time, at the risk of disturbing the end-of-term euphoria, the motion must have some critical scrutiny before we allow it to pass. It is a somewhat unusual constitutional device. A carry-over motion is known, but still relatively rare, for private Bills, but it is extremely rare for hybrid Bills. I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us what precedents there are for carrying over an important hybrid Bill with such enormous public policy implications as this one has. He will have to dig almost as deep as the Channel tunnel and the last Channel Tunnel Bill to find such precedents.
It would have been wiser to allow the new Parliament to decide whether to prolong the agony of the Channel tunnel by means of the reviving motion, which is an alternative option, rather than to keep the patient alive by means of the artificial life support machine that we are debating tonight. Now that the Government have decided to table the motion, there is a need to ask certain questions and seek certain assurances, because, at the very least, there are markers to he put down for the next Parliament and lessons to be learnt from the unhappy progress of the Bill so far.
I call it unhappy progress because anyone who is neither on the payroll of Eurotunnel nor on that of the Government would have to admit that the saga of the tunnel so far has been a mutual disappointment. Even those who support the Channel tunnel in principle must regret the extremely slow progress of the Bill and be critical of the Government and Eurotunnel for losing their way so often in recent months. After all, the project in its present form was introduced to Parliament nearly two years ago and in the intervening months there has been a great deal of fumbling and bungling, and still the Bill is less than two-thirds of the way through its legislative stages.
Outside Parliament, there is a conspicuous lack of national enthusiasm about, or even interest in, the project, and there is deep hostility in east Kent, manifested by some worrying local election results in the affected areas last week. There has been a continuously poor public relations reception for the management upheavals and mistakes that have bedevilled the Eurotunnel consortium, and there is rising scepticism in the financial and investment community as to how on earth the missing 96 per cent. of the funding for the project will be raised—especially the £750 million of equity, which has been postponed three times so far.
Against that background, I should have thought that the Government would approach the carry-over motion with some caution and humility. Instead, the wording of the motion seems to suggest an atmosphere of complacency and self-satisfaction that the project and the legislative structure surrounding it are in such perfect shape that we should automatically rubber-stamp it and send it on to the new Parliament without a doubt or a second thought.
Not for the first time in these proceedings, I take a different view from that of the Government. Before we pass the motion, I wish to highlight three main, continuing areas of unhappiness about the Bill on which I seek reassurances.
The first area of unhappiness lies in our cumbersome parliamentary procedures on the Bill. These procedures have been tested almost to destruction as a result of the Channel tunnel proceedings and have failed badly. That is because they have caused considerable dissatisfaction to promotors and petitioners alike, to specialist investors and to the general public. Perhaps above all they have been a source of considerable dissatisfaction for the parliamentarians, who were lumbered with the unwelcome task of sitting on the various Committees. Perhaps only the well-paid lawyers are satisfied, but even some of them in their quieter, private moments will have thought that they were taking part in nothing more than a lucrative charade.
The hybrid Bill procedure and its accompanying Select Committee hearings simply do not stand the test of being a fair way of hearing objectors and petitioners. Nor do they stand the test of being an efficient and thorough way of assessing a giant construction project from all angles within a reasonable time scale. With an eye on the next Parliament we should ask ourselves why the hybrid Bill procedure failed and what alternative procedures should be put in its place. First, the hybrid Bill procedure failed because everyone was surprised by the number and quality of the objectors.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the motion before the House. He should address himself to the motion rather than seek to initiate a debate about our procedures.

Mr. Aitken: I think that it is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I shall show in a minute that there is a strong possibility that the Bill will have to go back to square one, with the possibility of a new treaty in view of the financing arrangements. Therefore, it is highly germane to look for a moment or two at why the hybrid Bill procedure did not work and could not work again. One reason why it did not work is that a Committee consisting of laymen Members of Parliament picked on the recommendation of the Whips Office, inevitably turns out to be partisan, with no great expertise, and much whipping. It gave an impression of impatience and. at times, intolerance, and that was one reason why there was a haemorrhage of public confidence.
To illustrate that point I can do no better than quote from a speech made in Kent by the distinguished director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Mr. Robin Grove-White, who said:
Last year ministers promised repeatedly that all objectors would be given a fair hearing — an important promise, given the range of impacts expected from the tunnel.
At the bill's committee stages objectors were badgered again and again by impatient select committee members, reflecting the strict instructions of Government whips that the committee meet the Government's absurdly short timetable.
Witnesses like the CPRE found themselves required to give evidence higgledy-piggledy, in no logical sequence or order, making it all but impossible for them to deploy coherent cases in the fashion they felt necessary.
Lots of objectors found their supposedly sacrosanct rights of appearance under Parliament's standing orders bent and twisted, simply to speed the procedures along.
If a neutral body like the Council for the Protection of Rural England claims that it has seen its rights of audience in the House bent and twisted, before we pass the motion we should seek an assurance for the future that we will review these procedures, especially if, for example, there is a collapse of funding— I shall speak about that in a moment— and the need for a new treaty in view of a confidential report from the French Government. If we are asked to go back to square one in the new Parliament, we must have different procedures from those that we have in place. I notice that the Government are thinking of using the hybrid Bill procedure for things like nuclear power stations and coal mines. In future it would be much better to have a shortened form of public inquiry with time limits.
I shall now turn to area of unhappiness No. 2. Before we are confident about passing the motion, we should ask the Government if they have confidence in Eurotunnel. Eurotunnel was the Government's selection as the group to be given what is, in effect, a quasi-monopoly of one form of cross-Channel transport. However, the consor-tium is in a different shape today from the shape that it was in when it originated. The Eurotunnel consortium has turned out to be an unhappy ship. It is already on its third captain, or rather chairman, and a distinguished journalist, Mr. Kenneth Fleet, recently described it as rudderless, leaderless and penniless.
Many executives and directors have jumped ship or been thrown overboard. The first chairman of the Eurotunnel consortium, Sir Nicholas Henderson. has written a most illuminating book, "Channels and Tunnels", which has given us all an insight into the boardroom rows at Eurotunnel. It refers to construction


companies shouting at each other across the table, directors who thought that their only function was to carp, and bankers who fell out with one another.
To judge from Sir Nicholas Henderson's revelations, he simply could not wait to step down from the chairmanship. He was succeeded by Lord Pennock, who seemed to have the Midas touch in reverse when it came to raising money or influencing the public. Then we had an attempted coup on the chairmanship from Sir Nigel Broackes, followed by Sir Nigel's noisy exit, accompanied by one or two others, such as the deputy chief executive, Michael Julian. Then, after pressure from the Bank of England, we had Lord Pennock's departure. He was criticised for being a part-timer, but he was replaced by Mr. Alastair Morton, presumably another part-timer, as he has retained his chairmanship of a well-known City bank, Guinness Peat and, indeed, his role as an industrial adviser to the Social Democratic party. The change to Mr. Morton from Lord Pennock was rather like replacing Uncle Podger with Flashman, because Mr. Morton was quick to get headlines such as,
Tunnel tough guy puts the squeeze on railways".
That brings me to my third area of concern— the latest news on the financing arrangements for the tunnel which seem to have two dimensions of public interest which need to be looked at before we pass the motion. I have referred many times to the unsatisfactory financial structure of the Channel tunnel, and I have prophesied that, instead of having a Franco-British Channel tunnel, we shall end up having a Franco-Arabian-Japanese Channel tunnel.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that the national quotas for investment will remain sacrosanct? Originally, it was promised that the investment in the Channel tunnel would he 40 per cent. British money. 40 per cent. French money and 20 per cent. from overseas. That is a subject to which we shall have to return a great deal in the new Parliament, but I am encouraged by the fact that two able business men, now parliamentary candidates, one for Dover and one for Canterbury —respectively, Mr. David Shaw and Mr. Julian Brazier—have been voluble in their criticisms of the financial non-viability of the Channel tunnel, not least in letters to the Financial Times and, indeed, in a pamphlet that one of them is in the process of writing. I am glad that in future I shall be reinforced, rather than be the lone voice criticising these extremely dodgy financial arrangements and financial structure, by two such able parliamentary representatives on the Conservative Benches.
Having asked about the national quotas, I should like to refer to the second and more important dimension of the financing, which might loosely be called the story of Flashman and the railways. You will recall from your reading of "Tom Brown's Schooldays", Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Flashman was a prefect and something of a bully, one of whose tricks was to hold small boys upside down in front of a fire, roasting them until their pocket money fell out of their trousers. A similar technique seems to have been employed by Mr. Alastair Morton to extract extra revenue from British Rail.
The story went something like this. Mr. Morton arrived at Eurotunnel and found, like everyone else who could read a balance sheet and prospectus, that the sums did not add up. He had to get some extra revenue from somewhere, so he decided that the best place to get extra money was the railways, although they had already agreed

prices with Eurotunnel. Then the world watched with fascination as Mr. Morton made a series of pre-emptive announcements through the press to the effect that the tunnel would be cancelled by the end of last month unless British Rail was prepared to amend its original agreement and come up with more cash. Then we had a series of threats through the press, which were deeply resented, according to journalists' soundings of British Rail, and in the debate that took place on the front page of the newspapers, British Rail issued its statements on the financing. It said——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These historical recollections and reminiscences are interesting, but they do not seem to have much to do with the motion before the House.

Mr. Aitken: They are extremely relevant, because there was an announcement only this morning of the brand new financing arrangements. My case, which I stress will not take me long to put forward, is simply to argue that the House should not pass the motion until it has full details of the financing arrangements, which have been given to the press but not to Parliament, and which deserves some scrutiny.
British Rail answered this curious debate in the newspapers. On 26 April an article in The Sunday Times stated:
BR, led by Sir Robert Reid, its chairman, is determined not to give in to Eurotunnel demands for higher tariffs and large guaranteed payments as a principal user … BR has been incensed by his"—
Mr. Morton's—
efforts to amend the terms of a provisional agreement signed last September. Morton wants BR to pay up to 80 per cent. of its projected tariff on a monthly basis in advance. BR interprets this as an attempt to gain public funding for the project by the back door and says it will not accept this.
Who intervened, and what changed British Rail's mind? The Observer last Sunday gave the story under the headline——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that the Bill has been through all its stages in the House and is now before another place. Doubtless, if these matters are relevant, they will be considered in the other place at the appropriate time, but they do not seem to have much to do with the matter before the House.

Mr. Aitken: The matter before the House is whether the House should approve the carry-over motion. I argue that it should not approve the carry-over motion until we have received assurances about taxpayers' money which, as I shall reveal, may be being spent through a back door subsidy. I submit that that is highly relevant to whether we should allow the whole parliamentary process to be carried over to the next Parliament.
I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you will follow me closely for a moment, that, under the headline
Channel Tariff Solution in Sight",
The Observerlast Sunday printed the story that British Rail was going to come up with more cash, and it has now done so. The Observer— this is a relevant quotation — said:
Despite the Government's public position of non-intervention in the affairs of Eurotunnel the Department of Transport is thought to have brought pressure to bear on BR to increase the level of advance payments the company was prepared to make.
If true, that is a dramatic and serious revelation. I have little doubt that the story in The Observerwas correct. I


should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister whether Treasury as well as Transport Ministers were involved in this extraordinary effort to force more cash out of British Rail. I must ask my hon. Friend for a clear statement on what is going on.
If it is true that the Government, in the shape of Treasury and Transport Ministers, have been getting more money out of British Rail for Eurotunnel, contrary to BR's original commercial plan, the Government have broken their assurances to Parliament and are in danger of breaching the terms of the Anglo-French treaty, which specifically prohibits back-door subsidies with taxpayers' money. I am sure that you will be the first to agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that assurances are required.
We shall return again and again to this subject in the next Parliament. I think that the financial structure of Eurotunnel has been given a temporary reprieve. It is being kept alive on an artificial life support machine, now fed by the one kind of medicine that it was promised would never be used — a back-door subsidy of taxpayers' money via British Rail. Actually, in pure financial terms, I do not think that the subsidy is all that significant, as the Financial Timessaid this morning. But whether British Rail is giving a back-door subsidy or not, other storm clouds are gathering over Eurotunnel on the financial front.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the Rohan report, which was written by a French senator, Senator Rohan, and which has raised doubts on the French side about the financing of the Channel tunnel.
On 26 April, under the headline,
French raise new doubts on finance for Channel Tunnel", a story in the Sunday Telegraph said:
Renewed doubts about the financial viability of the £5 billion Channel Tunnel project are raised in a confidential report commissioned for the French Government.
The report, ordered by Mr. Chirac, the French Prime Minister … reaches damaging conclusions about the ability of private enterprise to fund the tunnel without the backing of public money.
It advises that all construction work on the French side be delayed until a 'truly reliable financing arrangement has been obtained.' 
The story goes on to say that the French Government are coming to the conclusion that they will have to intervene and commit themselves to the project. I should like to know what is going on. Have the British Government seen the French report? What is the position of the French Government in the light of the report, since Mr. Chirac was here for talks recently? Where are we going in relation to French confidence and involvement in the financing of the Channel tunnel?
I have thrown one or two brickbats at the Government, but before I conclude I offer one bouquet. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has been guiding the Bill through the House and outside it, has been most courteous and considerate and a highly effective communicator in his efforts to deal with many of the micro problems of Kent,such as roads, the environment and so on. The Mitchell committee, which carries his name, has done a good job with the Kent county council and other local authorities and interests. I take this opportunity to pay a genuine tribute to him. I am sure that he would be the first to wish to share some of that credit with our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who, behind closed doors, has fought and won

many a good fight for his constituents. The re-routing of the access road was the finest of his many achievements. Many people in Kent, including his constituents, are grateful to him.
Those successes are welcome, but they are solutions to the micro problems, while the macro problems of the Channel tunnel and Eurotunnel simply will not go away. The biggest and most insoluble problem of all is that, as a result of well-meaning misjudgments and muddled compromises, we have the wrong scheme at the wrong price, headed by the wrong consortium of businessmen who cannot raise the money. The local community and financial investment community have no confidence in it and the public could not care less about it and do not believe that it will happen. Only the Government plough serenely on, full of blind optimism. The political and parliamentary legs have been made to run far ahead of the financial head of sense and logic. The day of reckoning will come, but in the next Parliament. I look forward to being there at the kill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I would not like the carry-over motion to be agreed. I do not deny that carryover motions have been accepted in the past, but we are against the content of the motion, not the procedure. It would be wrong to argue that we are against carry-over motions in principle, when this matter has had much opposition throughout this Parliament.
We heard from the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) about the problems of the financiers of the company and their failure to attract sufficient money for the project. I was reminded by the presence of the lone Liberal, who is now absent, that this project is very much like the economic policies of the SDP and the Liberals. If the financiers of this project were checked over by Coopers and Lybrand, we might find them as faulty as the policies trotted out today by those parties for the election campaign.
One thing which worries me and ought to worry all Tory Members is that the Government have been saying for the past few years, not just before the elections, that they believe in an entrepreneurial society based upon market forces; the philosophy of Friedman, that the Government do not intervene. One of the cries of Ministers and the Prime Minister in the course of the campaign to get the tunnel has been that no public money will be used. It now seems apparent, from what we have heard and read, that British Rail will be asked to provide funds to keep the project alive, to provide it with an oxygen cylinder.
Everybody who has studied the facts and figures knows that the Channel tunnel is starved of cash and cannot raise money. Unlike the hon. Member for Thanet South, I doubt whether any of the consortia that made the propositions that were put forward at the time of that intense lobbying through Members of Parliament, some of whom had not declared their interest on the Register at the time, could have come up with a project that would have attracted the necessary money. I suspect that when Chirac came over here to meet the Prime Minister, they had a few cosy words suggesting that they would find ways and means of providing the extra money.
This matter cannot be discussed purely on the basis of whether the Bill should be carried over into the next Parliament. It should be debated on the basis of whether


this project should go forward at all. I remember the Labour party campaigning against the project because it wanted an inquiry. To some extent, that was a genuine proposition, but there was no inquiry. There will not be an inquiry if the Bill is carried over, but there should be. The project merited an inquiry.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, coming from the north of England, have been concerned. I am not putting you on the spot, but most Members of Parliament from the north of England would argue that the Channel tunnel has nothing for them. We all know that——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the House has dealt with the Bill at all its stages and has approved it. It is now in another place. We cannot have a re-run of the Second Reading debate that the hon. Gentleman thinks might have taken place.

Mr. Skinner: But the issue is whether this Parliament should approve this carry-over motion. This is not a guillotine motion. There is a difference. A debate on a guillotine motion is about whether we should provide a limited amount of time to discuss a Bill. This is about one Parliament, at its fag-end, handing over powers to another Parliament which will be comprised of a different number of Members on different sides of the House. We have a duty to use all possible means to try to prevent this carryover motion being approved.
During the election campaign, my constituents will want to know what I did about the carry-over motion. They will want to know whether I opposed it. If I am to be guided by your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have to say that as a matter of fact, I did want to discuss the fact that British Rail was to be starved of finances for its midland line and the line used by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and others. I would have to say that I was sorry, but I could not, because in this quaint old Parliament, in this quaint old club, we were not allowed to discuss the merits of the matter. My constituents will say, "You what, Dennis? You had to discuss the procedure?". I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is an important issue. It is apparent to those in the financial community that here is a so-called entrepreneurial project that is not getting off the ground. It is coming with the begging bowl to a Tory Government to be bailed out, and British Rail, with its starved finances, is to do that bailing out.
The number of ships built in the past eight years has fallen by 54 per cent., yet this Parliament will allow a carry-over motion to go through in order to wreck the shipping industry even further. Yet I am supposed to say, "Well, it is only a matter of procedure." If there is money in British Rail, it should go towards extra wages for those who work for British Rail. If there is any money over, it should be used to improve the lines up and down Britain.
In the past few weeks, the Government, in their helter-skelter dash towards the electorate, have been characterised by a number of U-turns. We have all heard them trotted out in the past few weeks. The nurses have been given the full award recommended by the review body—although even that is not enough. There was the U-turn about the nuclear dumps and other bits and bobs where the Government have suddenly found money out of the contingency fund in order to improve their chances in a few marginal seats.
The Government should stand by their faith and by the ideas for which they are supposed to argue throughout the rest of the Parliament. If people decide to use their money to build a tunnel they should be made to do so. If that entrepreneurial exercise is financially risky, those people should not say that they are not prepared to put their own money into it because it might fail and they might lose their money.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South knows all about failure in the business community. He had to get out. He was not able to go to the Government and say that breakfast television, which he was running, had not been able to get off the ground, and could they channel him some money from the BBC. That would have been ludicrous, although it might have been different if it had been a marginal seat.
The whole thing stinks. There is a smell about this project that anybody who has read about its finances would know. Ninety-six per cent. of the money has not been found. What other project in Britain would get past first base if it could only find 4 per cent. of the money needed? The developers have come with their begging bowl to the Government. I am not prepared to give the carry-over motion a smooth passage and I hope that others will join me in opposing it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We have heard two interesting speeches on the carry-over motion. I want to make two or three points clear. First, I would have preferred this motion not to be made, as it is quite unnecessary. If the Government were lucky enough to win the forthcoming election, they could quite easily have this or a similar motion after the election, as it would have precisely the same effect.

Mr. Skinner: They are frightened of losing.

Mr. Hughes: It makes no difference. If they lose, a different Government would look at it. I do not know why it is necessary to have the motion. In Kent, in the financial markets and in the House, the fact that there has not been a proper inquiry to test the viability and strategic importance of the scheme has caused difficulties. Had there been an inquiry, and had it recommended in favour of a tunnel, we might well have found that the project would have done better financially than it has.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) at one stage referred to the Labour party's policy as being, I think he said, "partly genuine". I do not know what he meant, but I assure him that it was not a partially genuine policy to have a public inquiry. When the next Labour Government come to power after the election, there will be an inquiry into the Channel tunnel scheme. The fact that the Bill will still be available in the new Session will make no difference to that commitment.
During the various stages of the Bill, we were told that it was an historic project, how many jobs would be involved and of the great enthusiasm of the Government for the scheme. There was a great fanfare of trumpets, both in France and here, at the signing ceremony. However, the Government have chosen to go to the country now rather than wait until October. The Bill could have finished all its stages in the Lords and the treaty been ratified, which would have been an occasion of great historic importance. During the election, therefore, I hope that we will not hear how the Government are committed to the Channel tunnel and how they have undying faith in it. If the Government were serious, instead of a continuation motion the Prime Minister would have been persuaded otherwise when she held her Chequers meeting on Sunday, and she would have put the election off until October.
I do not mind if the continuation motion is carried, because we all know that, should the Government be returned, they will have their way if they have a majority. If, as I suspect and believe, we are the Government, we will have our way and our policy. Therefore, the continuation motion is of no importance. It is purely technical and I do not know why the Government have bothered with it.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) raised a number of serious points. The first question he asked was why we are laying this motion and not choosing revival after an election. Looking hack at precedent, in 1974 this Bill went through two Parliaments. On one occasion it was carried forward and on the other occasion it was revived. It was revived because Parliament was in recess at the time, and, therefore, the opportunity of carrying it forward was not available. In effect, we have followed precedent where it was available.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to a public inquiry. I simply remind him that a large number of petitioners have incurred a great deal of expenditure and have spent much time and trouble. There would still have been all those Select Committee stages to go through, even if there had been a public inquiry, and that would have meant all those people facing double expense and double time. I do not think that they would have thanked the hon. Gentleman for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet South (Mr. Aitken) claimed that the Select Committee had been harried by the Whips. That is a disgraceful suggestion. I do not know of any member of the Select Committee of either House who would have allowed himself to be treated in that way. The House of Commons Select Committee met for 36 sitting days, had to deal with 4,845 petitions, made a 220-paragraph special report and made 70 amendments. The Lords Select Committee sat for 30 days and made 109 amendments, and its special report is awaited eagerly. In the final stages, one of the voluntary parliamentary agents, Mr. Beckett, said:
My Lords, we have been very impressed by your impartiality, your understanding and concern for our problems, especially on the matter of roads. I want to thank you on behalf of my petitioners for the kindness you have shown them in the last two months. Thank you, my Lords.
That does not sound like the sort of harrying that my hon. Friend is trying to portray, or misportray, to the House.

Mr. Aitken: rose——

Mr. Mitchell: I have not finished with my hon. Friend yet.
Far more effective has been the persistent hand of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). who has quietly and effectively, behind the scenes, put the interests of his constituents in a way that has made a number of effective changes to what would otherwise have been the way in which matters have been dealt with.

Mr. Aitken: I did not refer to the House of Lords Select Committee in any way. I am well aware that there were no Whips operating in the Lords. So, although I totally share my hon. Friend's tribute to the Lords, his response has nothing to do with my speech.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that one of the things that worried him and ought to worry Conservative Members—we are most grateful for the solicitous approach of the hon. Gentleman about matters which worry Conservative Members—was that British Rail was going to be asked to supply certain funds to provide an oxygen supply to Eurotunnel. The usage agreement is a commercial deal. British Rail has acquired the right to 50 per cent. of the pathways through the tunnel and in return it will undertake to pay 65 per cent. of the tolls on Eurotunnel's traffic forecast. That is a straightforward commercial transaction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South expressed a worry that Eurotunnel will not raise the large amount of money that it needs. Perhaps I should tell him that today Eurotunnel acquired £1,000 million-worth of loans from the European Investment bank. Before my hon. Friend starts another scare story, I should say that that money is in no way public money, funded by the


public sector or by any Government. It is funded by the European Investment hank, backed by banks in the private sector, with no public commitment at all.

Mr. Skinner: It is interesting that the Minister said that the money is coming from European Investment bank and that it will be financed totally by banks. Will he take on board the fact that, when ventures of this sort are entered into by banks, there is a caveat that allows banks, where money has been lost and ventures have not been successful, to offset certain amounts of tax against liabilities of that sort? That would have the result that if, for example, this failed, the banks that have taken part in the exercise, just as with rescheduling debts, would be able to offset part of the losses against tax. That will mean that the taxpayer will be helping to finance that failed venture.

Mr. Mitchell: I know a red herring when I see one, and the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not follow him down that pipeline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South raised a series of questions on what he described as the Anglo-Iranian-Japanese financing. None of my hon. Friend's questions were relevant to the procedural motion before the House tonight. He asked for an assurance that there was no back-door subsidy for Eurotunnel from British Rail, and I give him that assurance.
Finally, I was fascinated by the complaint voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South at the beginning of his speech about the slowness of the progress of this legislation. If I have allowed myself to be led into any delay at any time during the passage of this legislation, it is only because my hon. Friend played the role that ancient mariners always feared—of the wrecker on the shore who put the harbour lights in the wrong place to mislead the crew. We have not been misled on this occasion, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. Dennis Skinner was appointed Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as a Second Teller for the Noes, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Bill stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—


(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1985–86, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING BILL

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That further proceedings on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented in the next Session which is the same in every respect as the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill when it was presented in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first time; and
(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
If this motion is passed, the work that mainly concerns the authorisation of the new crossing will not have to be repeated as soon as the new Parliament meets.

Question put and agreed to.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK BROADS BILL

Ordered,
That further proceedings on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been the first and second time, to have been reported from a Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Standing Committee; and
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to that Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session;

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Maude.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Roads and Pavements (Maintenance)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for coming to reply to the debate. These may be almost the last moments of this Parliament, but the problem that I wish to explore will not go away because there is a change of one Parliament for another. It relates very much to the way in which the care and maintenance of highways is dealt with as a consequence of the Highways Act 1980 and earlier legislation.
The particular problem has been created by the arrangements contained in the 1980 Act, whereby district councils can exercise a right to do maintenance of unclassified roads in their territory. On that basis, a district council, in seeking to do its best, is not unnaturally perhaps inclined to develop a champagne taste but with only a beer income to satisfy it. Whereas we would all like authorities to have a champagne income, the problem of where it comes from cannot be put to one side. Authorities have to work within the constraints of what the rates will stand and what is granted by central Government from tax receipts.
In the present system, even though at professional officer-to-officer level there is co-operation, when there is a difference in political control, that co-operation may be undermined or lost by party politicking. That is highly unsatisfactory and cannot be good for the consumer. Similarly, the mechanism allowed for in schedule 7 to the Act is in theory a reasonable way of settling any dispute, but only on a professional level. An officer-to-officer dispute can reasonably be settled by the Secretary of State, acting in the role of professional arbiter rather than as a political person. A comparison can be made with the Secretary of State for the Environment acting in the same capacity over planning appeals.
When the Secretary of State wears a party hat different from that of one of the parties to the dispute, a reasonable professional judgment may be rejected on a purely political basis. Of course, the rejection would come from the party that felt it had been done down. All this can be viewed as nothing but the normal cut and thrust of party politics, but at the bottom of it the consumer cannot and must not be forgotten.
I have in mind the elderly lady lying in the orthopaedic ward, having broken a hip by tripping over a displaced paving slab. She finds no consolation in the thought that it is normal party politicking or even in the possibility of financial compensation; she feels only acute frustration when told by the district council and the county council that it is the fault of the other. That unfortunate person is justified in her anger. She just wants someone to whom to complain and who will carry the can.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the problem exists in my part of the country between Hereford city council — a district council — and Hereford and Worcester county council. Hereford exercised its right in 1974 — when both councils were formed — and ever since to carry out its own maintenance on unclassified roads and pavements within the city boundaries. I use this case as an example to underline my unhappiness with the present position and the way it can be exploited for the wrong

reasons. My concern is not just that the roads and pavements of Hereford should be safe for constituents who walk, ride bicycles and drive motor cars—I do all three —but also that there should be full value for money. I have yet to meet a constituent who feels that he pays too little in rates.
There should also be accountability. The present system, as it is capable of being used when there is a difference of political control between the various bodies, does not provide that accountability. In Hereford, for example, no one can claim that the city council has been relatively disadvantaged in respect of similar authorities, such as Worcester, Kidderminster, Stourport, Bromsgrove and Redditch. Every year, for the past six years, Hereford has been, and is now, top of that league in terms of pounds per kilometre of unclassified roads to maintain. In 1986–87, the Wyre Forest estimate was £2,113 per kilometre, Bromsgrove £2,266, Redditch £1,814, with Hereford in the lead at £2,527.
If I read correctly the figures from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, they compare with the average for maintenance of other roads in the county—the category given by CIPFA is "other county roads"—of £1,427 per kilometre. It is also worth noting that Hereford and Worcester have one of the highest figures per kilometre per capita of roads to maintain in the country.
From my discussions with city and county professional officers, it would appear that the degree of mutual understanding and co-operation has been improving steadily of late, and I welcome that. If it will help to achieve the best value for money, so much the better. There appears to be a consensus that the backlog of problems is being reduced. I think that that comes about as a consequence of that co-operation, and it is encouraging. However, all of us who live or work around Hereford know that there are still areas where the pavements and roads are quite deplorable. Some have not been properly maintained in living memory.
On the political side, the position is different. Surely it is wrong for there to be a situation whereby a district council can demand expenditure without having to worry about the consequences of raising it. The expectations of electors are raised for political expediency, with local politicians secure in the knowledge that electorally they will not have to bear the brunt of the increased taxation if they succeed, and that they can pass on the blame if they fail. That is a marvellous position for them, but I am sure that it is unacceptable.
If there is to be accountability, and hence value, surely the lines of responsibility should be cleared away to obviate that problem. Either the county council should do the lot, on the basis that it is the rate precepting authority for that function, or the responsibility for action and funding should be passed over lock, stock and barrel to the district council. There should not be this curious position whereby we can have the one without the other.
In the former case, the professionals of the county councils would argue that they can deploy a level of expertise and scale of approach to the problem that is not available to district councils and that, because district council officers perforce must carry out many other functions as well, they cannot carry the specific expertise to achieve the most effective utilisation of financial resources.
In the latter case, the district council professionals would argue that there is local accountability and an improved opportunity for co-ordination with other district council responsibilities. They would argue that not having that function would jeopardise the viability of their technical service organisations and that the lines of communication for the public would be the shortest.
Both of those arguments have their attractions. However, the present arrangements seem to lead to the worst of all worlds, especially when one moves out of the realm of the professional and into the political.
My hon. Friend will have the vast experience of the Department of Transport at his fingertips and will have access to a far wider scope of examples and experience than I have. The problem is exercising both the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils. I should be grateful for any advice or evidence that my hon. Friend can give me that would point to a size of district council above which perhaps the economies of scale and the facility and expertise of local knowledge and organisations would come together in harmony and achieve palpable value for money without giving rise to this split personality.
I also believe that the Audit Commission is doing a special study on the matter. Can my hon. Friend tell the House when he expects it to publish its findings?

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without question put.

Motion made, and Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]

Mr. Shepherd: The Audit Commission report will give valuable pointers as to how the problems may be resolved and, indeed, when we may expect to know positively whether or not we are getting full value for money.
As I said earlier, I am anxious that there should be full visible accountability and full auditable value, and the sooner the better. We are not necessarily best served by the present arrangements.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) for raising this issue. I wish to pay more than the usual tribute to him, because he has raised an issue which is not the common currency of Parliament, but which, as he put his finger on it, raises the questions of effectiveness and visible accountability.
My hon. Friend has not gone in for press-release politics. For all I know, he may not have put out a press release on this in the past. Instead, he has taken the matter up with the city and county officers and tried to bring them together; with the Audit Commission and put forward his own view for its consideration; in parliamentary questions; and in letters to the Department of Transport. No constituency could ask its Member to do more on this type of issue, which may not have the glamour of wet-fish politics — hitting one's opponent over the head with a wet fish just to wait for him to hit back. He has raised an issue which, sadly, has not attracted the attention of the alliance parties tonight and he has made the case for clearing up what appears to be unclear responsibility over the function and effectiveness of spending, and who should determine the outcome of a dispute between two authorities.
I intend to be fairly serious and detailed, because this debate will be of interest to county councils and district councils throughout the country. We recognise that the condition of roads and pavements is always a matter of great local concern and that there has been particular distress about the state of pavements in Hereford Maintenance of local roads is for local authorities, but we in the Government attach high priority to maintenance and have given clear signals about priorities.
Our determination that the county council had not acted unreasonably did not imply any judgment about the state of the roads in Hereford or the efficiency with which the city council is carrying out their maintenance. That is primarily a matter for the city council and the county council to examine. I have no other powers to intervene or to terminate a district council's powers to maintain urban unclassified roads. I hope that Hereford city council and the county council will continue to make every effort to accommodate maintenance needs and resources. Both the city council and county council exist to serve the people.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the highway authority for motorways and all-purpose trunk roads. County councils act as his agents in non-metropolitan areas. Local authorities are responsible for the rest of the road network. Outside the metropolitan areas the county council is the highway authority for local roads. The county council may make arrangements under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 for a district council to act as its agent in respect of some or all its highway functions. Alternatively, district councils can carry out certain duties by claiming the right to maintain footpaths, bridleways and urban unclassified roads in its area under section 42 of the Highways Act 1980. I confirm my hon. Friend's explanation of the position. In such cases the county council remains the highway authority and is responsible for funding the maintenance work that is carried out by a district council. The county council may withhold payment until it is satisfied that the works are properly executed.
About two-thirds of the 333 district councils in England and Wales possess a section 101 agency for at least some highway functions, but arrangements vary greatly. In general, agents deal with the cyclic and routine tasks rather that with the major capital works. In contrast, only about 12 district councils have claimed the right under section 42 to maintain minor local roads. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that I shall not be able to give him the information on how that number varies, because only a small number of councils use section 42.
A district council which is claiming section 42 maintenance powers is required to submit a detailed estimate of costs to the county council each year. Under schedule 7 to the Highways Act 1980, the county council must not unreasonably withhold approval of the estimate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers under section 7 to determine whether approval of a district council's maintenance estimate has been unreasonably withheld by a county council. He may also determine whether a particular road falls within the relevant powers, whether any maintenance works have been properly executed, and the liability of a county council to make a payment to a district council.
A highway authority is responsible for determining maintenance standards and, where work is delegated to agents, ensuring that standards are complied with and that


adequate funds are provided. I think that that makes it plain that there is unlikely to be a similar dispute when there is an agency agreement. The responsibility is tied to one pair of hands, and although people look to their agents for advice and professionalism the responsibility lies with one authority. District councils which are claiming section 42 maintenance powers are responsible for deciding standards, subject to funds being made available by the county council as the highway authority. The House will understand how Hereford city council and Hereford county council have fallen into disagreement in the past.
Highway maintenance standards should reflect a range of factors, including engineering judgment, availability of resources and value for money. Standards for routine repairs for national roads, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the highway authority, are laid down in the Department's code of practice for routine maintenance. Standards for local roads are a matter for local highway authorities.
In 1983 the local authority associations published a code of good practice for highway maintenance. That recommended standards and warning levels, while acknowledging the need for flexibility to meet local conditions. The associations are currently reviewing their code, and the relationship between the local authorities' and the Department's code is being jointly considered.
We have continued to give high priority to maintaining the local road network. Public expenditure provision has been generous in recent years, with a 13 per cent. increase in 1987–88, most of which feeds into authorities' grant-related expenditure. There was a 15 per cent. increase in 1986–87, and earlier years' increases were well above inflation.
Local authorities must determine their own spending priorities. We hope that they will act in accordance with the increased provision and give highway maintenance high priority. The national increase in provision should enable authorities to halt the trend of deterioration that was revealed by the recent national road maintenance condition surveys. It should also allow authorities to start work on bridges that are overdue for repair or in need of upgrading.
The position in Hereford and Worcester, as I do not have to explain to my hon. Friend, is that the county council is the highway authority. It directly maintains most of the classified roads and all local roads outside the principal urban areas.
The county council has an agency with the city of Worcester covering all classes of county roads and agencies with three other district councils for the maintenance of unclassifed urban roads. Hereford city council declined a formal agency agreement. Instead, it claimed the right, under section 42 of the Highways Act, 1980 to maintain urban unclassified roads.
The Government have increased Hereford and Worcester county council's grant-related expenditure for highway maintenance by 30 per cent. between 1985–86 and 1987–88. Spending priorities are a matter for the authority to decide. In recent years the county council has chosen to spend below grant-related expenditure.
Part of the county council's highway maintenance expenditure is allocated to Hereford city council for the maintenance of its urban unclassified roads. I understand

that there was a significant increase in the funds made available between 1985–86 and 1986–87. However, I am aware that the allocations were substantially lower than the estimates for those years submitted by Hereford city council. I regret that I do not have the figures for 1986–87.
Hereford city council has consistently claimed that the funding provided by the county council for unclassified roads in the city is markedly insufficient. As my hon. Friend said, the failure on the part of both sides to agree resulted in the city council asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to determine whether the county council had unreasonably withheld approval of the city council's maintenance estimates for 1985–86 and 1986–87.
The city council argued that once it had claimed the right to maintain its urban unclassified roads the county council was under an obligation to meet the reasonable costs, irrespective of the county's spending plans. It said that "reasonableness" should be judged in the context of the condition of the city's roads. The city council argued that its roads were heavily trafficked and in an unacceptable condition.
In response, the county council argued that the city council was adopting standards that were unachievable in the present economic climate. The county council said that it had set its standards in the context of the national codes of practice and that Hereford city had consistently received the highest allocation per kilometre, or per mile if that is an appropriate standard for my hon. Friend, of all districts in the county. Most important, the county did not accept that the city council was failing in its statutory duty to maintain the highway.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concluded that the county council had had regard to the relevant considerations and had not acted unreasonably. He took the view that the county council, as highway authority and provider of funds, could reasonably weigh maintenance standards and priorities against the available finance and, if necessary, reduce the city council's estimate in the light of that.
I appreciate that the points I have made concerning our determination that the county council had not acted unreasonably does not imply a judgment about the state of the roads in Hereford. My hon. Friend has rightly concentrated attention on questioning how one can have visible accountability and determine that the system is effective and that roads are effectively maintained. The Hereford case raises broader issues of the optimum arrangements for the maintenance of local roads. My right hon. Friend and I have both said that the Audit Commission is currently undertaking a special study of highway maintenance including agency and section 42 arrangements. The commission expects to publish its interim report dealing with this matter in late summer. That answers one of my hon. Friend's questions.
I am certain that the commission's findings will help local authorities and their auditors to examine and improve their efficiency. I know that many hon. Members would like to pay tribute to the work of the Audit Commission on this and other matters. The solicitor who recently transferred from the borough of Greenwich to the Audit Commission will add to its professionalism. The commission has a tradition of recruiting people who know their job and can work with local authorities to produce useful reports.
I look forward to receiving the commission's report. The Government will consider the role of district councils with regard to highway maintenance as a result of that report. I believe that my hon. Friend would agree that it is premature to reach any conclusions on agency and section 42 powers while the Audit Commission study is still under way.
I hope that my answer in this relatively short debate is helpful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a matter that is clearly of concern at least to the 12 district councils that use section 42 powers. I suspect that it will also be of interest to the two thirds of the district councils which have an agency role with the local county council highway authority. It is the kind of matter that is best dealt with by a Member of Parliament who is responsible for a constituency rather then a multi-Member system, whereby people may not bother to pick up points of such a nature.
I hope that you will not judge me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I turn my remarks rather more to you. I came to the House in 1975 when you had already served for 11 years. It will be accepted on both sides of the House that it has been an honour to serve with you as a colleague, as a Minister and as Deputy Speaker. There are relatively few countries in which someone can move from being a teacher to being an Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as you did, followed by years of distinguished service in the Department of the Environment.
Speaking for hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on the Front Benches, as well as for those who

sit on ministerial Benches and on the Opposition Front Bench, may I say that your presence in the Chair has led to rather better behaviour, rather better debates and a great deal more affection for the occupant of the Chair than we could say has occurred in years past, although I do not wish to cast any reflection on Mr. Speaker or your fellow Deputy Speakers. You are held in great affection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the leaders of all parties, There are many who cannot be here this evening but who would like to join me in wishing you a happy retirement and the hope that your memories of this place will be as good as our memories of you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. It has been a great privilege and honour to serve the House. I have been particularly fortunate in having been a Minister and then a Deputy Speaker. As Deputy Speaker, I have enjoyed my service in the House. I have listened to a great number of speeches to which I would not otherwise have listened. It has been interesting. It is a great honour to sit in the Chair. Labels no longer matter. Every right hon. and hon. Member is an individual and personality. This is a moving occasion. I am grateful for what the Minister said. I am privileged to have served this honourable House. I have grown more proud of the House as the years have gone by.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Ten o'clock.